A domain-level approach to describing growth in achievement

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-26

  Schulz, E Matthew ^a   Lee, Won Chan ^a,b   Mullen, Ken ^a  

^a American College Testing Incorporated   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17244377395     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-0655.2005.00002.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. ACT, Inc. (2001). WorkKeys technical handbook. Iowa City, IA: Author.
2. American College Testing (1993, February). Description of mathematics achievement levels-setting process and proposed achievement level descriptions (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: Author.
3. Andrich, D. (1985). An elaboration of Guttman scaling with Rasch models for measurement. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 33-80). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Beaton, A. E., & Allen, N. L. (1992). Interpreting scales through scale anchoring. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17, 191-204.
5. Bock, R. D., Mislevy, R. J., & Woodson, C. E. M. (1982). The next stage in educational assessment. Educational Researcher, 11(2), 4-11 and 16.
6. Bock, R. D., Thissen, D., & Zimowski, M. F. ( 1997). IRT estimation of domain scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 197-211.
7. Boone, W. J. (1990, April). How psychometric analysis can help teachers realize a curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
8. Burstein, L., Koretz, D., Linn, R., Sugrue, B., Novak, J., Baker, E., & Harris, E. L. (1996). Describing performance standards: Validity of the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress Achievement Level Descriptors as Characterizations of Mathematics Performance. Educational Assessment, 3, 9-51.
9. Cliff, N. (1983). Evaluating Guttman Scales: Some old and new thoughts. In H. Wainer & S. Messick (Eds.), Principles of modern psychological measurement: A festschrift for Frederick M. Lord. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. 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.
11. Forsyth, R. A. (1991). Do NAEP scales yield valid criterion-referenced interpretations? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(3), 3-9.
12. Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchman, P. A. Lazarsfeld, S. A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and prediction (pp. 60-90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., Algina, J., & Coulson, D. B. (1978). Criterion-referenced testing and measurement: A review of technical issues and developments. Review of Educational Research, 48, 1-47.
14. Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (1996). Iowa tests of basic skills. Forms K, L, and M. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
15. Huynh, H. (1985). Improving student achievement through mastery learning programs. In D. U. Levine (Ed.), New directions in testing (pp. 185-201). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16. 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.
17. Janssen, R., Tuerlinckx, F., Meulders, M., & Boeck, P. (2000). A hierarchical model for criterion-referenced measurement. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 285-306.
18. Kolstad, A., Cohen, J., Baldi, S., Chan, T., DeFur, E., & Angeles, J. (1998, May). 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.
19. Koretz, D., & Deibert, E. (1993). Interpretations of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) anchor points and achievement levels by the print media in 1991. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
20. Koretz, D., & Deibert, E. (1996). Setting standards and interpreting achievement: A cautionary tale from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Assessment, 3, 53-81.
21. Linn, R. L. (1998). Validating inferences from National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement-level reporting. Applied Measurement in Education, 11, 23-48.
22. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Masters, G. N., Adams, R., & Lokan, J. (1994). Mapping student achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 595-609.
24. Mislevy, R. J. (1998). Implications of market-basket reporting for achievement-level setting. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(1), 49-63.
25. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark procedure: psychological perspectives. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 159-176.
27. National Assessment Governing Board (2000). Mathematics framework for the 1996 and 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.
28. National Center for Education Statistics (2000). The nation's report card. Mathematics 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
29. Patz, R., Yao, L., Chia, M., Lewis, D., & Hoskens, M. (2003, April). Hierarchical and multidimensional models for vertical scaling. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
30. Pommerich, M., Nicewander, W. A., & Hanson, B. A. (1999). Estimating average domain scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 199-216.
31. Popham, W. J. (1994). The instructional consequences of criterion-referenced clarity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(4).
32. Reckase, M. (1998). Converting Boundaries between National Assessment Governing Board Performance Categories to Points on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Score Scale: The 1996 Science NAEP Process. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(1), 9-21.
33. Schulz, E. M. (1987). Functional assessment in rehabilitation: An example with the visually impaired. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
34. Schulz, E. M. (2003). Describing achievement levels on the grade 8 NAEP mathematics assessment using multiple domain scores. Unpublished report to the National Center for Education Statistics.
35. Schulz, E. M., Kolen, M., & Nicewander, W. A. (1999). A rationale for defining achievement levels using IRT-estimated domain scores. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 347-362.
36. Schulz, E. M., & Lee, W. (2002, April). Describing NAEP mathematics achievement using domain scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. New Orleans, LA. ERIC Identifier: ED464917.
37. Schulz, E. M., Perlman, C., Rice, W. K., Jr., & Wright, B. D. (1992). Vertically equating reading tests: An example from Chicago Public Schools. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 1, pp. 138-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
38. Stone, M. H., Wright, B. D., & Stenner, A. J. (1999). Mapping variables. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 3, 308-322.
39. Sugrue, B., Novak, J., Burstein, L., Lewis, E., Koretz, D., & Linn, R. (February, 1995). Mapping test items to the 1992 NAEP mathematics achievement level descriptions: Mathematics educators' interpretations and their relationship to performance. CSE Technical Report 393. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
40. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). The method of paired comparisons for social values. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 384-400. Reprinted in L. L. Thurstone (1959). The measurement of values. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
41. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). The method of paired comparisons for social values. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 384-400. Reprinted in L. L. Thurstone (1959). The measurement of values. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
42. Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 14-23.
43. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. (Research Monograph No. 18). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
44. Wright, B. D. (1999). Fundamental measurement for psychology. In S. E. Embretson & S. L. Hershberger (Eds.), The new rules of measurement (pp. 65-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.
46. Zwick, R., Senturk, D., Wang, J., & Loomis, S. C. (December, 2000). An investigation of alternative methods for item mapping in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.