A historical perspective and current views on the standards for educational and psychological testing

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 35-41

  Camara, Wayne J ^a   Lane, Suzanne ^b  

^a Office of Academic Affairs   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Educational testing; Psychological testing; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750967372     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00066.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. Aiken, L., West, S. G., Sechrest, L., Reno, R. R., Roediger, H. L., Scarr, S., Kazdin, A. E., & Sherman, S. J. ( 1990). Graduate training in statistics, methodology, and measurement in psychology: A survey of PhD programs in North America. American Psychologist, 45, 721-734.
2. Albedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219-234.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1966) Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1985) Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement Used in Education (1955) Technical recommendations for achievement tests. Washington, DC: National Educational Association.
6. American Psychological Association (1954) Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Washington, DC: Author.
7. Baker, E. L. (2003). Multiple measures: Toward tiered systems. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22 (2), 13-17.
8. Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud and the attack on America's schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9. Camara, W. J. (1994). Alternative models for delineating and developing standards in testing. Unpublished paper developed for the Joint Committee on Testing Standards.
10. Camara, W. J. (1997). Use and consequences of assessment in the USA: Professional, ethical and legal issues. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 140-152.
11. Cannell, J. J. (1988). Nationally normed elementary achievement testing in America's public schools: How all 50 states are above the national average. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7(2), 5-9.
12. Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it and prevent it. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Drasgow, F., Luecht, R. M., & Bennett, R. E. (2006). Technology and testing. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed.)(PP. 471-515). Westport, CT: Praeger.
14. Educational Testing Service (2000).ETS standards for quality and fairness. Princeton, NJ: Author.
15. Haney, W., & Madaus, G. C. (1991). The evolution of ethical and technical standards for testing. In R. K. Hambleton & J. C. Zaal (Eds.), Advances in educational and psychological testing (pp. 395-424). Boston: Kluwer.
16. Lane, S. (2004). Validity of high-stakes assessment: Are students engaged in complex thinking? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(8), 6-14.
17. Linn, R. L. (1997). Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 14-15.
18. Linn, R. L. (1998). Partitioning responsibility for the evaluation of the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 28-36.
19. Madaus, G. C., Lynch, C. A., & Lynch, P. S. (2001). A brief history of attempts to monitor testing. National Board of Educational Testing and Public Policy Statements, 2(2). Boston: NBETPP.
20. Mehrens, W. A. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 16-18.
21. Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern - wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9-13.
22. Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491-529.
23. Schmeiser, C. B. (1992). Ethical codes in the professions. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(3), 5-11.
24. Shepard, L. A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 5-8.
25. Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Yen, W. M. (1998). Investigating the consequential aspects of validity: Who is responsible and what should they do?Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 5.