Student test score reports and interpretive guides: Review of current practices and suggestions for future research

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 145-220

  Goodman, Dean P ^a   Hambleton, Ronald K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042557919     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1702_3     Document Type: Review

References (60)

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: Author.
2. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2002). Foundation skills assessment: Individual student report. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Author.
3. Connecticut State Board of Education. (2002a). Connecticut academic performance test second generation: Interpretive guide. Hartford: Author.
4. Connecticut State Board of Education. (2002b). Connecticut academic performance test second generation: Understanding your teenager's scores. Hartford: Author.
5. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1997). Missouri assessment program(MAP) student report.Monterey,CA: Author.
6. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2001 a). TerraNova, the second edition: A new concept of assessment information. Monterey, CA: Author.
7. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2001b). TerraNova, the second edition: Home report and guide to the home report. Monterey, CA: Author.
8. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2001c).TerraNova,the second edition: Individual profile report. Monterey, CA: Author.
9. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2003). Interactive reports page. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.ctb.com/mktg/terranova/tn_reports_noflash.jsp.
10. Data Recognition Corporation. (2003a). 2002 Pennsylvania system of school assessment grade 11 mathematics and reading: Individual student report. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.datarecognitioncorp.com/paparent/ grade5.html#grade11.
11. Data Recognition Corporation. (2003b). 2002 Pennsylvania system of school assessment grade 11 mathematics and reading: Individual student report. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.datarecognitioncorp.com/paparent/ main.html
12. Delaware Department of Education. (2002). Delaware student testing program: A score results guide for parents. Dover: Author.
13. Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2002a). Individual student report: Ontario secondary school literacy tests, February 2002. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author.
14. Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2002b). Understanding the individual student report (ISR): Ontario secondary school literacy test (OSSLT), February 2002. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author.
15. Education Week. (2003). Quality counts 2003: If I can't learn from you. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc03/.
16. Forte Fast, E., & the Accountability Systems and Reporting State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards. (2002). A guide to effective accountability reporting. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
17. Goertz, M. E., Duffy, M. C., & Carlson-LeFloch, K. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems: 50 state profiles. Retrieved October 24,2003, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/Publications_Ac-countability.htm.
18. Hambleton, R. K. (2002a, February). A new challenge: Making results from large scale assessments understandable and useful. An invited presentation at the Provincial Testing in Canadian Schools: Research, Policy, and Practice Conference, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
19. Hambleton, R. K. (2002b). How can we make NAEP and state test score reporting scales and reports more understandable? In R. W. Lissitz & W. D. Schafer (Eds.), Assessment in educational reform (pp. 192-205). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
20. Hambleton, R. K., & Slater, S. (1997). Are NAEP executive summary reports understandable to policy makers and educators? (CSE Technical Report 430). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Teaching.
21. Hambleton, R. K., & Smith, T. (1999). A focus group study of the general/public 1996 NAEP science reports (Laboratory of Psychometric and Evaluative Research Report No. 361). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, School of Education.
22. Hamilton, L. S., & Koretz, D. M. (2002). Tests and their use in test-based accountability systems. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education (pp. 13-49). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
23. Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2002). Stanford achievement test series. 10th ed. Score report sampler. San Antonio, TX: Author.
24. Illinois State Board of Education. (2002). No child left behind. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.isbe.state.il.us/nclb/.
25. Impara, J. C., Divine, K. P., Bruce, F. A., Liverman, M. R., & Gay, A. (1991). Does interpretive test score information help teachers? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(4), 16-18.
26. Jaeger, R. (1998). Reporting the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NVS NAEP Validity Studies). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
27. Joint Committee on Testing Practices (JCTP). (2004). Code affair testing practices in education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.apa.org/science/jctpweb.html.
28. Landgraf, K. M. (2001). Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/ corp/kurttest.pdf.
29. Linn, R. L. (1998). Assessments and accountability (CSE Technical Report 490). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Teaching.
30. Louisiana Department of Education. (2002a). 2001-2002 interpretive guide: Grades 4, 8, 10, and 11 criterion-referenced tests. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
31. Louisiana Department of Education. (2002b). Spring 2002 criterion-referenced test individual student report: English language arts - GEE21. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
32. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2002a). MCAS tests of Spring 2002: Parent/guardian report. Boston, MA: Author.
33. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2002b). The Massachusetts comprehensive system: Guide to the MCAS for parents/guardians. Boston, MA: Author.
34. Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning. (2002). Minnesota comprehensive assessments: 2002 eleventh grade mathematics MCA student report. Minneapolis: Author.
35. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1995). Code of professional responsibilities in educational measurement. Washington, DC: Author.
36. National Education Goals Panel (NEGP). (1998). Talking about tests: An idea book for state leaders. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
37. National Research Council (NRC). (2001). NAEP reporting practices: Investigating district-level and market-basket reporting. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. New Jersey Department of Education. (2002). October 2002 high school proficiency assessment (HSPA): Cycle I score interpretation manual. Trenton: Author.
39. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, §_1111, 115 Stat. 1449-1452 (2002).
40. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2002). Pennsylvania system of school assessment. Harrisburg: Author.
41. Snodgrass, D., & Salzman, J. A. (2002, April). Creating the Rosetta stone: Deciphering the language of accountability to improve student performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
42. Taylor, A. R., & Tubianosa, T. S. (2001). Student assessment in Canada: Improving the learning environment through effective evaluation. Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.
43. Title I-Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged final rule, 67 Fed. Reg. 45,038 (Dec. 2, 2002) (to be codified at 34 CFR § 200.8[a]).
44. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
45. Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
46. Tukey, J. W. (1990). Data-based graphics: Visual display in the decades to come. Statistical Science, 5(3), 327-339.
47. University of Iowa. (200 la). The Iowa tests: Interpretive guide for teachers and counselors. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
48. University of Iowa. (2001b). The Iowa tests: Report to students and parents. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
49. Virginia Department of Education. (2002). Virginia standards of learning assessments: Understanding your child's SOL report. Richmond: Author.
50. Wainer.H. (1990). Graphical visions from William Playfair to John Tukey.Statistical Science, 5(3), 340-346.
51. Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 14-23.
52. Wainer, H. (1997a). Improving tabular displays: With NAEP tables as examples and inspirations. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(1), 1-30.
53. Wainer, H. (1997b). Visual revelations: Graphical tales of fate and deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. New York: Copernicus Books.
54. Wainer, H., Hambleton, R. K., & Meara, K. (1999). Alternative displays for communicating NAEP results: A redesign and validity study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 56(4), 301-335.
55. Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. (1981). Graphical data analysis. In M. R. Rosenweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 191-241). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
56. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2002). Wisconsin student assessment system: Interpretive guide for students and parents. Madison: Author.
57. Wyoming Department of Education. (2002a). The Wyoming comprehensive assessment system: Guide to interpreting the 2002 WyCAS reports. Cheyenne: Author.
58. Wyoming Department of Education. (2002b). WyCAS-Alt March 2002 student report for parents/guardians. Cheyenne: Author.
59. Ysseldyke, J., & Nelson, J. R. (2002). Reporting results of student performance on large-scale assessments. In G. Tindal & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students (pp. 467-480). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
60. Zwick, R., Senturk, D., Wang, J., & Loomis, S. C. (2001). An investigation of alternative methods for item mapping in the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(2), 15-25.