Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 23-30

  Lane, Suzanne ^a   Stone, Clement A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038606729     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00082.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999) Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Bryk, A. S., &Raudenbush, S. W. (1992) Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA Sage.
3. Chudowsky, N., &Behuniak, P. (1997) Establishing the consequential validity for large-scale performance assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
4. Cronbach, L. J. (1988) Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer, (Ed.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Cronbach, L. J. (1989) Construct validation after thirty years. In R. L. Linn, (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy (pp. 147–171). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
6. DeMars, C. E. (2000) Test stakes and item format interactions. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(1), 55–77.
7. Firestone, W. A., Camilli, G., Yurecko, M., Monfils, L., &Mayrowetz, D. (2000) State standards, socio-fiscal context and opportunity to learn in New Jersey. Educational Policy Analysis Arcives, 8(35). Available online at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n35.
8. Frederiksen, J. R., &Collins, A. (1989) A district's approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27–42.
9. Haertel, E. H. (1999) Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(4), 5–9.
10. House, E. R. (1980) Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11. Kane, M. (2000) Current concerns in validity theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans.
12. Kane, M. B, Khattri, N., Reeve, A. L., &Adamson, R. J. (1997) Assessment of Student Performance. Washington, DC: Studies of Education Reform, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
13. Kane, M. T. (1992) An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535.
14. Kane, M. T., Crooks, T., &Cohen, A. (1999) Validating measures of performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(2), 5–17.
15. Koretz, D.M., Barron, S., Mitchell, K. J., &Stecher, B. M. (1996) Perceived effects of the Kentucky instruction results information district. MR-792-PCT/FF. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
16. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., &Stone, C. A. (1998) A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24–28.
17. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., &Stone, C. A. (1999, March) MSPAP impact study: Vol. I: Mathematics. U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.271) for the Maryland Assessment System Project.
18. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., &Stone, C. A., Cerrillo, T. L., &Hansen, M. A. (2000, September) MSPAP impact study: Language arts (reading and writing). U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.271) for the Maryland Assessment System Project.
19. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., &Stone, C. A., Cerrillo, T. L., &Hansen, M. A. (2000, November) MSPAP impact study: Social studies. U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.271) for the Maryland Assessment System Project.
20. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., &Stone, C. A., Cerrillo, T. L., &Hansen, M. A. (2000, December) MSPAP impact study: Science. U.S. Department of Education, Assessment Development and Evaluation Grants Program (CFDA 84.271) for the Maryland Assessment System Project.
21. Linn, R. L. (1993) Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1–16.
22. Linn, R. L. (1997) Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 14–16.
23. Linn, R. L. (1998) Partitioning responsibility for the evaluation of the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 28–30.
24. Linn, R. L. (2000) Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–16.
25. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., &Dunbar, S. B. (1991) Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21.
26. Linn, R. L., Graue, M. E., &Sanders, N. M. (1990) Comparing state and district results to national norms: The validity of the claims that “everyone is above average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(3), 5–14.
27. McDonnell, L. M., &Choisser, C. (1997, September) Testing and teaching: Local implementation of new state assessments. CSE Technical Report 442. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE) Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
28. Mehrens, W. A. (1998) Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence Evaluation Policy Analysis Archives, 6(13), 1–27.
29. Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In R. L. Linn, (Ed.) Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 3–104). New York: American Council on Education.
30. Messick, S. (1992) The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments (ETS RR-92-39). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
31. Muthen, B. (1995) Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel data. Invited paper for the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.
32. O'Neil, H. F., Sugrue, B., &Baker, E. L. (1995) Effects of motivational interventions on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Mathematics Performance. Educational Assessment, 3, 135–157.
33. Pomplun, M. (1997) State assessment and instructional change: A path model analysis. Applied Measurement in Education, 10(3), 217–234.
34. Reckase, M. D. (1998) Consequential validity from the test developer's perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 13–16.
35. Rogosa, D. R., &Willet, J. B. (1985) Understanding correlates of change by modeling individual differences. Psychometrika, 50, 203–228.
36. Shepard, L. A. (1997) The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 5–8, 13.
37. Stevens, J. J. (1999) Educational accountability systems: Issues and recommendations for New Mexico (Technical Report). New Mexico State Department of Education.
38. Stevens, J. J. Estrada, S., &Parkes, J. (2000) Measurement issues in the design of state accountability systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
39. Stone, C. A., &Lane, S. (in press). Consequences of a state accountability program: Examining relationships between school performance gains and teacher, student, and school variables. Applied Measurement in Education.
40. Willet, J. B., &Sayer, A. G. (1994) Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates and predictors of change. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 363–381.