Do national and state assessments converge for educational accountability? A meta-analytic synthesis of multiple measures in maine and kentucky

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 171-203

  Lee, Jaekyung ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547490759     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340701301462     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ad Hoc Committee on Confirming Test Results. (2002, March 1). Using the National Assessment of Educational Progress to confirm state test results: A report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Confirming Test Results. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board. Retrieved December 19, 2005, from http://nagb.org
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Educational Measurement. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
3. Baker, E. L., Linn, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Koretz, D. (2002, Winter). From the directors: Standards for educational accountability systems. The CRESST Line, 1-4.
4. Bond, L. A., Braskamp, D., & Roeber, E. R. (1996). The status of state student assessment programs in the United States: Annual Report. Oakbrook, IL: North Central Regional Education Lab (NCREL).
5. Cizek, G. J. (1993). Reaction to National Academy of Education report, "Setting performance standards for student achievement." Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
6. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1995). CPRE policy briefs. Tracking student achievement in science and math: The promise of state assessment systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
7. Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., & Jones, C. O. (1993). Can students do mathematical problem solving?: Results from constructed reponse questions in NAEP's 1992 Mathematics Assessment. National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, D.C.
8. Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., & Wright, J. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act working?: The reliability of how states track achievement. University of California, Berkeley PACE Working paper 06-1.
9. Hambleton, R. K., Jaeger, R. M., Koretz, D., Linn, R., Millman, J., & Phillips, S. E. (1995). Review of the measurement quality of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System, 1991-1994 (Report prepared for the Office of Educational Accountability, Kentucky General Assembly) Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Education.
10. Hambleton, R. K., Brennan, R. L., Brown, W., Dodd, B., Forsyth, R. A., Mehrens, W. A., et al. (2000). A response to "Setting reasonable and useful performance standards" in the National Academy of Sciences' Grading the Nation's Report Card. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(2), 5-13.
11. Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effects model. (pp. 285-300) In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
12. 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.
13. Jaeger, R. M. (1989). Certification of student competence. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 485-514). New York: Macmillan.
14. Jaeger, R. M., & Mills, C. N. (2001). An integrated judgment procedure for setting standards on complex, large-scale assessments. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 313-338). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
15. Kane, M. (1995). Examinee-centered vs. task-centered standard setting. In M. L. Bourque (Ed.), Joint conference on standard setting for large scale assessments. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment Governing Board.
16. Kentucky Department of Education. (1995). KIRIS accountability Cycle 1 technical manual. Frankfort, KY: Author.
17. Kentucky Department of Education. (1997). KIRIS accountability Cycle 2 technical manual. Frankfort, KY: Author.
18. Kentucky Department of Education. (2004). Kentucky Core Content Tests 2002 technical report. Frankfort, KY: Author.
19. Kentucky Department of Education. (2005). Kentucky's consolidated state application, revised accountability workbook, June 15, 2004. Retrieved May 16, 2005, from http://www.education.ky.gov
20. Kingston, N. M., Kahl, S. R., Sweeney, K. P., & Bay, L. (2001). Setting performance standards using the body of work method. In G. J. Cizek, (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 219-248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
21. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
22. Koretz, D., & Barron, S. I. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (MR-792-PCT/FF). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
23. Laguarda, K. G., Breckenridge, J. S., & Hightower, A. M. (1994). Assessment programs in the statewide systemic initiatives (SSI) states: Using student achievement data to evaluate the SSI. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
24. Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An indepth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project as Harvard University.
25. Lee, J., & McIntire, W. (2002). Using national and state assessments to evaluate the performance of state education systems: Learning from the cases of Kentucky and Maine. Orono: University of Maine.
26. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher. 2(29), 4-16.
27. Linn, R. L. (2001). The design and evaluation of educational assessment and accountability systems (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 539). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
28. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31, 3-16.
29. Livingston, S. A., & Zieky, M. J. (1982). Passing scores: A manual for setting standards of performance on educational and occupational tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
30. Maine Department of Education. (1996). 1994-95 MEA performance level guide: Grade 4. Augusta, ME: Author.
31. Maine Department of Education. (1996). 1994-95 MEA performance level guide: Grade 8. Augusta, ME: Author.
32. Measured Progress. (2003). 2002-2003 MEA technical manual. Dover, NH: Author.
33. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The bookmark procedure: Psychological perspectives. (pp. 249-282). In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Technical report of the NAEP 1996 state assessment program in mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
35. National Education Goals Panel. (1996). Profile of 1994-95 state assessment systems and reported results. Washington, DC: Author.
36. Neil, M., Bursh, P., Schaeffer, B., Thall, C., Yohe, M., & Zappardino, P. (1995). Implementing performance assessments: A guide to classroom, school, and system reform. Cambridge, MA: FairTest.
37. Pellegrino, J. W., Jones, L. R., & Mitchell, K. J. (1999). Grading the nation's report card. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
38. Petersen, N. S., Kolen, M. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming, and equating. (3rd ed., pp. 221-262) In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
39. Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects model. (pp. 301-322) In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
40. Raven, J. (2005). More problems with gap closing philosophy and research. American Psychologist, 60(9), 1041-1042.
41. Reese, C. M., Miller, K. E., Mazzeo, J., & Dossey, J. A. (1997). NAEP 1996 mathematics report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
42. Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.) The handbook of research synthesis. (pp. 261-284) New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
43. Shepard, L. A., Glaser, R., Linn, R. L., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1993). Setting performance standards for student achievement: An evaluation of the 1992 achievement levels (A report of the National Academy of Education Panel on the evaluation of the NAEP trial state assessment). Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
44. Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201-210.
45. U.S. General Accounting Office, (1993). Educational achievement standards: NAGB's approach yields misleading interpretations [GAO/PEMD-93-12], Washington, DC: Author.
46. Wise, L. L., & Hoffman, R. G. (2002). How will assessment data be used to document the impact of educational reform? In R. W. Lissitz & W. D. Schafer (Eds.), Assessment in education reform: Both means and ends (pp. 146-161). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.