The generalizability of motivation filtering in improving test score validity

Educational Assessment

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 65-83

  Wise, Vicki L ^a   Wise, Steven L ^a   Bhola, Dennison S ^a  

^a JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645089679     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15326977ea1101_3     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. American Library Association. (2003). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Association of Colleges and Research Libraries. Retrieved July 7, 2004, from http://www.ala. org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/ informationliteracycompetency.htm
2. Banta, T. W., & Pike, G. R. (1989). Methods for comparing outcomes assessment instrument. Research in Higher Education, 30, 455-469.
3. Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17-27.
4. O'Neil, H. F. Jr., Sugrue, B., Abedi, J., Baker, E. L., & Golan, S. (1997). Final report on experimental studies on motivation and NAEP test performance (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 427). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
5. Schiel, J. (1996). Student effort and performance on a measure of postsecondary educational development (ACT Rep. No. 96-9). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
6. Sundre, D. L. (1997, April). Differential examinee motivation and validity: A dangerous combination. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
7. Sundre, D. L. (1999, April). Does examinee motivation moderate the relationship between test consequences and test performance? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432588)
8. Sundre, D. L., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). An exploration of the psychology of the examinee: Can examinee self-regulation and test-taking motivation predict consequential and non-consequential test performance? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 6-26.
9. Sundre, D. L., & Moore, D. L. (2002). The Student Opinion Scale: A measure of examinee motivation. Assessment Update, 14(1), 8-9.
10. Sundre, D. L., & Wise, S. L. (2003, April). Motivation filtering: An exploration of the impact of low examinee motivation on the psychometric quality of tests. Paper present at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
11. Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. D. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10, 1-17.
12. Wise, S. L., & Kong, X. (2005). Response time effort: A new measure of examinee motivation in computer-based tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 163-183.
13. Wolf, L. F., & Smith, J. K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227-242.
14. Wolf, L. F., Smith, J. K., & Birnbaum, M. E. (1995). Consequence of test performance, test motivation, and mentally taxing items. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 341-351.