Defending a state graduation test: GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency. Measurement perspectives from an external evaluator

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 387-401

  Mehrens, William A ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034359916     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S15324818AME1304_05     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Bernal, E. M. (1998). Report of Dr. Ernesto M. Bernal.
4. Bond, L. (1987). The Golden Rule settlement: A minority perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6(2), 18-20.
5. Brennan, R. L. (1984). Estimating the dependability of the scores. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), A guide to criterion-referenced test construction (pp. 292-334). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6. Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment. (1988). Implications for test fairness of the "Golden Rule" company settlement. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Fassold, M. (1998, November 15). Written report of Mark Fassold.
8. Haney, W. M. (1998, December 11). Preliminary report on Texas Assessment of Academic Skills Exit Test (TAAS-X).
9. Jaeger, R. M. (1986). Policy issues in standard setting for professional licensing tests. In W. P. Gorth & M. L. Chernoff (Eds.), Testing for teacher certification (pp. 185-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Jaeger, R. M. (1987). NCME opposition to proposed golden rule legislation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6(2), 21-22.
11. Linn, R. L., & Drasgow, F. D. (1987). Implications of the Golden Rule settlement for test construction. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6(2), 13-17.
12. Marco, G. L. (1988). Does the use of test assembly procedures proposed in legislation make any difference in test properties and in the test performance of black and white test takers? Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 109-133.
13. McNeil, L. M. (1998). Expert witness for the plaintiff.
14. Mehrens, W. A., & Kaminski, J. (1989). Methods for improving standardized test scores: Fruitful, fruitless or fraudulent? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(1), 14-22.
15. Meier, P., Sacks, J., & Zabell, S. L. (1984). What happened in Hazelwood: Statistics, employment discrimination, and the 80% rule. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1, 139-164.
16. Plake, B. S. (1995). Differential item functioning in licensure tests. In J. C. Impara (Ed.), Licensure testing: Purposes, procedures, and practices (pp. 205-218). Lincoln: Buros-Nebraska Series on Measurement and Assessment.
17. Shapiro, M. M. (1998, November 23). Declaration of Martin M. Shapiro.
18. Shepard, L. A. (1987, January). The Golden Rule agreement: Bad law, bad science. The Score, pp. 7, 9.
19. Texas Student Assessment Program Technical Digest for the Academic Year 1996-1997. (1998). Iowa City, IA: National Computer Systems.
20. Twing, J. S. (1998, December 13). Cut score SEMs [Memo to S. E. Phillips].