Why cognitive diagnostic assessment?

Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education: Theory and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 3-18

  Leighton, Jacqueline P ^a   Gierl, Mark J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 50849143592     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511611186.001     Document Type: Chapter

References (31)

1. Anastasi, A. (1967). Psychology, psychologists, and psychological testing. American Psychologist, 22, 297–306.
2. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences4, 167–207.
3. Anderson, J. R., & Gluck, K. (2001). What role do cognitive architectures play in intelligent tutoring systems? In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress(pp. 227–261). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.
5. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
6. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. In H. Wainer &H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity(pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
8. Embretson (Whitley), S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.
9. Embretson, S., & Gorin, J. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive psychology principles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 343–368.
10. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Shafto, M. G. (Eds.). (1990). Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Healy, A. F. (Ed.). (2005). Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13. Irvine, S. H., & Kyllonen, P. C. (2002). Item generation for test development. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342.
15. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement(4th ed., pp. 17–64).Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education and American Council on Education.
16. Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (in press). Defining and evaluating models of cognition used in educational measurement to make inferences about examinees’ thinking processes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice.
17. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694 (Monograph Suppl. 9).
18. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement(3rd ed., pp. 1–103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
20. Mislevy, R. J. (1993). Foundations of a new test theory. In N. Frederiksen, R. J. Mislevy, & I. I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests(pp. 19–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–67.
22. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23. Nichols, P. (1994). A framework for developing cognitively diagnostic assessments. Review of Educational Research, 64, 575–603.
24. Nichols, P. D., Chipman, S. F., & Brennan, R. L. (Eds.). (1995). Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub.L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1435 (2002).
26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.
27. Peak, H. (1953). Problems of observation. In L. Festinger & D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences(pp. 243–299). Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
28. Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1979). Cognitive correlates and components in the analysis of individual differences. Intelligence, 3, 187–214.
29. Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement(3rd ed., pp. 263–331). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
30. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). What psychology can (and cannot) do for test development. In B. S. Plake (Ed.), Social and technical issues in testing: Implications for test construction and usage(pp. 39–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. U.S. Department of Education. (2004, September 16). Stronger accountability: Testing for results: Helping families, schools, and communities understand and improve student achievement. Retrieved February 15, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/testingforresults.html