Describing Performance Standards: Validity of the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress Achievement Level Descriptors as Characterizations of Mathematics Performance

Educational Assessment

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 1995, Pages 9-51

  Burstein, Leigh ^a   Koretz, Daniel ^b   Linn, Robert ^c   Sugrue, Brenda ^a   Novak, John ^a   Baker, Eva L ^a   Harris, Elizabeth Lewis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b RAND Institute on Education and Training ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346658952     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: 15326977     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326977ea0301_2     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. American College Testing. (1993a). Description of mathematics achievement level setting process and proposed achievement levels descriptions. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
2. American College Testing. (1993b). Setting achievement levels on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Mathematics, Reading, and Writing: A technical report on reliability and validity. Iowa City, IA: Author.
3. Bourque, M. L. (1993, April). The NAEP achievement level setting process for the 1992 mathematics assessment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council for Measurement in Education, Atlanta, GA.
4. Bourque, M. L., & Garrison, H. H. (1991). The LEVEIS of mathematics achievement: Initial performance standards for the 1990 NAEP mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
5. Burstein, L., Koretz, D. Linn, R. L., Sugrue, B., Novak, J., Lewis, E., & Baker, E. L. (1993). The validity of interpretations of the 1992 NAEP achievement levels in mathematics. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
6. Cizek, G. (1993). Reactions to the National Academy of Education report, “Setting performance standards for student achievement.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Toledo at Ohio.
7. General Accounting Office. (1993). Educational achievement standards: NAGB's approach yields misleading interpretations. Washington, DC: Author.
8. Kane, M. (1993). Comments on the NAE evaluation of the NAGB achievement levels. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin at Madison.
9. Linn, R. L., Koretz, D. M., Baker, E. L., & Burstein, L. (1991). The validity and credibility of the achievement levels for the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 330). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
10. Mullis, I. V. S. Campbell, J. R., & Farstrup, A. E. (1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the nation and the states: Data from the national and trial state assessments (Report No. 23-SST06). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
11. Mullis, I. V. S., Dossey, J. A., Owen, E. H., & Phillips, G. W. (1991, June). The state of mathematics achievement: NAEP's assessment of the nation and the trial assessment of the states (Report No. 21-ST-04). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
12. Mullis, I. V. S., Dossey, J. A., Owen, E. H., & Phillips, G. W. (1993). NAEP 1992 mathematics report card for the nation and the states: Data from the national and trial state assessments. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
13. National Academy of Education. (1993). Setting performance standards for student achievement: A report of the National Academy of Education Panel on the evaluation of the trial state assessment: An evaluation of the 1992 achievement levels. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, The National Academy of Education.
14. National Assessment Governing Board. (1991). Response to the draft summative evaluation report on the National Assessment Governing Board's inaugural effort to set achievement levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.
15. National Assessment of Educational Progress Improvement Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-297, § 3403.
16. Phillips, G. W., Mullis, I. V. S., Bourque, M. L., Williams, P. L., Hambleton, R. K., Owen, E. H., & Barton, P. E. (1993). Interpreting NAEP scales. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
17. Reckase, M. D. (1993, February). The defensibility of domain descriptions for achievement levels and anchor points. Paper presented at the meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee on Standard Setting, Washington, DC.
18. Spanos, G., Rhodes, N. C., Dale, T. C., & Crandall, J. (1988). Linguistic features of mathematical problem solving: Insights and applications. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 221-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19. Stufflebeam, D. L., Jaeger, R. M., & Scriven, M. (1991). Summative evaluation of the National Governing Board's inaugural effort to set achievement levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.
20. Sugrue, B., Novak, J., Burstein, L., Lewis, E., Koretz, D., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Mapping test items to the 1992 NAEP mathematics achievement level descriptions: Mathematics educators’ interpretations and their relationship to student performance. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
21. Survey of Mathematics and Science Opportunities. (1993). TIMSS curriculum analysis: A content analytic approach (Research Report Series No. 57, Third International Mathematics and Science Study). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.