An Investigation of Alternative Methods for Item Mapping in the National Assessment of Educational Progress

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 15-25

  Zwick, Rebecca ^a   Senturk, Deniz ^b   Wang, Joyce ^c   Loomis, Susan Cooper ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b GE GLOBAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^c AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH   (United States)

^d ACT INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346583011     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00059.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Advisory Council on Education Statistics. (May, 1999) Statistics Committee Report, Statistics Committee Meeting, Washington DC, May 2021, 1999.
2. ACT. (December 1997). Developing Achievement Levels on the 1998 NAEP Civics and Writing. Design Document. Iowa City: Author.
3. Beaton, A. E., & Allen, N. L. (1992) Interpreting scales through scale anchoring. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 191–204.
4. Bock, R. D., Mislevy, R. J., & Woodson, C. E. M. (1982) The next stage in educational assessment. Educational Researcher, 11 (2), 4–11, 16.
5. Donoghue, J. R. (1996, April). Issues in item mapping: The maximum category information criterion and item mapping procedures for a composite scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
6. Donoghue, J. R. (1997, March), Item mapping to a weighted composite scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
7. Ebel, R. L. (1962) Content standard test scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 15–25.
8. Forsyth, R.A. (1991) Do NAEP scales yield valid criterion-referenced interpretations Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(3), 3–9, 16.
9. Hambleton, R. K., & Slater, S. (1994) Are NAEP Executive Summary Reports Understandable to Policy Makers and Educators? (Final report). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
10. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1993) Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA Sage.
11. Huynh, H. (1998) On score locations of binary and partial credit items and their applications to item mapping and criterion-referenced interpretation. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 35–56.
12. Jaeger, R. M. (1998) Reporting the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP Validity Studies report series). Palo Alto: American Institutes for Research.
13. Kolstad, A. (1996, April), The response probability convention embedded in reporting prose literacy levels from the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
14. Kolstad, A., Cohen, J., Baldi, S., Chan, T., DeFur, E., & Angeles, J. (1998, May 6). The response probability convention used in reporting data from IRT assessment scales: Should NCES adopt a standard Report prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
15. Lewis, D. M., Mitzel, H. C., & Green, D. R. (1996, June) Standard setting: A bookmark approach. Paper presented at the CCSSO national conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Phoenix.
16. Lord, F. M. (1980) Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Mislevy, R. J., Johnson, E. G., & Muraki, E. (1992) Scaling procedures in NAEP. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 131–154.
18. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D.R. (2001) The bookmark method: Psychological perspectives. In Cizek, G. J., (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Concepts, Methods, and Perspectives (pp. 249–281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Reckase, M. D. (2000, June) The evolution of the NAEP achievement levels setting process: A summary of the research and development efforts conducted by ACT. Iowa City: ACT, Inc.
20. Thurstone, L. L. (1925) A method of scaling psychological and educational tests. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 16, 433–451.