Multiple sources of evidence: An analysis of stakeholders' perceptions of various indicators of student learning

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 19-27

  Guskey, Thomas R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Assessment; High stakes assessment; Student learning outcomes; Student performance

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846972249     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00085.x     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. American Educational Research Association (2000). Position statement of the American Educational Research Association concerning high-stakes testing in preK-12 education. Educational Researcher,29(8), 24-25.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Baker, E. L. (2003). Multiple measures: Toward tiered systems. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(2), 13-17.
4. Barton, P. E. (2002). Staying on course in education reform. Princeton, NJ: Statistics & Research Division, Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
5. Barton, P.E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap: Baselines for tracking progress (Policy information report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
6. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(3), 509-527.
7. Brennan, R. T., Kim, J., Wenz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G. N. (2001). The relative equitability of high-stakes testing versus teacher-assigned grades; An analysis of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Harvard Educational Review, 71 (2), 173-216.
8. Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 35-36.
9. Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Grading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
10. Carnoy, M. (2005). Have state accountability and high-stakes tests influenced student progression rates in high school? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24 (4), 19-31.
11. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
12. Chester, M. D. (2003). Multiple measures and high stakes decisions: A framework for combining measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(2), 32-41.
13. Chester, M. D. (2005). Making valid and consistent inferences about school effectiveness from multiple measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 40-52.
14. Cross, L. H., & Frary, R. B. (1996). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.
15. Elig, T. W., & Frieze, I. H. (1979). Measuring causal attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37(4), 621-634.
16. Elmore, R. F. (2004). The problem of stakes in performance-based accountability systems. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 274-296.). New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
18. Haladyna, T. M. (1999). A complete guide to student grading. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.
19. Henderson-Montero, D., Julian, M. W., & Yen, W. M. (2003). Multiple measures: Alternative design and analysis models. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(2), 7-12.
20. Herman, J. L., Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2004, Summer). Accountability systems in support of student learning: Moving to the next generation (CRESST Line). Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Learning.
21. Hess, F.M. (2005). Commentary: Accountability policy and scholarly research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 53-57.
22. Hill, R. K. & DePascale, C. A. (2003). Reliability of No Child Left Behind accountability designs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 12-20.
23. Kane, M. (2002). Validating high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 31-41.
24. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2002). Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test-based accountability systems. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2002 (pp. 235-283). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
25. Kifer, E. (2001). Large-scale assessment: Dimensions, dilemmas, and policies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
26. Koretz, D. (2003). Using multiple measures to address perverse incentives and score inflation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(2), 18-26.
27. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24-28.
28. Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 23-30.
29. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 4-16.
30. Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations. Educational Researcher, 32 (7), 3-13.
31. Linn, R. L. (2005, Summer). Fixing the NCLB accountably system (CRESST Policy Brief 8). Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Learning.
32. McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(1), 20-32.
33. McMillan, J. H., Workman, D., & Myran, S. (1999). Elementary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
34. Miethe, T. D., (1985). The validity and reliability of value measurements. Journal of Personality, 119(3), 441-453.
35. Munson, J. M., & McIntyre, S. H. (1979). Developing practical procedures for the measurement of personal values in cross-cultural marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 48-52.
36. National Research Council (1999). High Stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. J. P. Heubert & R. M. Hauser (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
37. Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. M. (2005). Johnny can read . . . in some states: Assessing the rigor of state assessment systems. Education Next, 5(3), 52-53.
38. Popham, W. J. (2006). Needed: A dose of assessment literacy. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 84-85.
39. Porter, A. C., Linn, R. L., & Trimble, C. S. (2005). The effects of state decisions about NCLB adequate yearly progress targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 32-39.
40. Rankin, W. L., Grube, J. W. (1980). A comparison of ranking and rating procedures for value system measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 233-246.
41. Reynolds, T. J., & Jolly, J. P. (1980). Measuring personal values: An evaluation of alternative methods. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 531-536.
42. Schafer, W. D. (2003). A state perspective on multiple measures in school accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(2), 27-31.
43. U.S. Congress (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
44. Warren, J. R., & Edwards, M. R. (2005). High school exit examinations and high school completion: Evidence from the early 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 53-74.
45. Zuckerman, M., Bernieri, R., Koestner, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). To predict some of the people some of the time: In search of moderators.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 279-293.