Accessibility, easiness and standards

Educational Research

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 251-261

  Bramley, Tom ^a  

^a University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Equating; Measurement; National Curriculum test; Rasch; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 18844453746     PISSN: 00131881     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0013880500104382     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Ahmed, A. & Pollitt, A. (2001) Improving the validity of contextualised questions, paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, Leeds, September.
2. Andrich, D. (1989) Distinctions between assumptions and requirements in measurement in the social sciences, in: J. A. Keats et al. (Eds) Mathematical and theoretical systems (Oxford, Elsevier), 7-16.
3. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J. & Van Heerden, J. (2003) The theoretical status of latent variables, Psychological Review, 110, 203-219.
4. Cresswell, M. J. (1996) Defining, setting and maintaining standards in curriculum-embedded examinations: judgmental and statistical approaches, in H. Goldstein & T. Lewis (Eds) Assessment: problems, developments and statistical issues (New York, Wiley).
5. Fisher-Hoch, H. & Hughes, S. (1996) What makes mathematics exam questions difficult? Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, September.
6. Lord, F. M. (1952) A theory of test scores (New York, Psychometric Society).
7. Lord, F. M. (1980) Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).
8. Massey, A., Green, S., Dexter, T. & Hamnett, L. (2003) Comparability of national tests over time: key stage test standards between 1996 and 2001 (London, QCA).
9. Masters, G. N. (1988) Item discrimination: when more is worse, Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(1), 15-29.
10. Michell, J. (1990) An introduction to the logic of psychological measurement (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).
11. Petersen, N. S., Kolen, M. J. & Hoover, H. D. (1989) Scaling, norming and equating, in: R. L. Linn (Ed.) Educational measurement (3rd edn) (Phoenix, AZ, Oryx Press), 221 -262.
12. Pollitt, A., Entwhistle, N., Hutchinson, C. & de Luca, C. (1985) What makes exam questions difficult? (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press).
13. Rasch, G. (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research).
14. Tomlinson, M. (2002) Inquiry into A-level standards. Interim Report, September 27, 2002. Available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/docs/ alevel_interim_report.htm (accessed 1 April 2005).
15. Wright, B. D. (1999) Fundamental measurement for psychology, in: S. E. Embretson & S. L. Hershberger (Eds) The new rules of measurement: what every psychologist and educator should know (Mahwah, NJ, LEA), 65-104.