Assessment as a policy tool

Review of Research in Education

Volumn 27, Issue , 2003, Pages 25-68

  Hamilton, Laura ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 5644263949     PISSN: 0091732X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X027001025     Document Type: Review

References (207)

1. Abedi, J. (2003). Impact of student language background on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data (CSE Tech. Rep. 603). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
2. Achieve, Inc. (2000). Setting the record straight (Achieve Policy Brief No. 1). Washington, DC: Author.
3. Achieve, Inc. (2002). Aiming higher: The next decade of education reform in Maryland. Washington, DC: Author.
4. Airasian, P. W. (1988). Measurement-driven instruction: A closer look. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7(4), 6-11.
5. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2001). Schools, achievement, and inequality: A seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 171-191.
6. American Educational Research Association. (2000). Position statement of the American Educational Research Association concerning high-stakes testing in pre-K-12 education. Educational Researcher, 29(8), 24-25.
7. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
8. Amrein-Beardsley, A. A., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). Re-analysis of NAEP math and reading scores in states with and without high-stakes tests: Response to Rosenshine. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(25). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n25/
9. Baker, E. L., Linn, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Koretz, D. M. (2002, Winter). Standards for educational accountability systems. CRESST Line, pp. 1-4.
10. Baker, E. L., & O'Neil, H. (1995). Diversity, assessment, and equity in educational reform. In M. Nettles & A. Nettles (Eds.), Equity and excellence in educational testing and assessment (pp. 69-87). Boston: Kluwer.
11. Baker, E. L., O'Neil, H. F., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessment. American Psychologist, 48, 1210-1218.
12. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1991). Effects of frequent classroom testing. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 89-99.
13. Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 37-45.
14. Baxter, G. P., Shavelson, R. J., Goldman, S. R., & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 1-17.
15. Bennett, R. E. (1998). Reinventing assessment: Speculations on the future of large-scale educational testing. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
16. Bennett, S. N., Wragg, E. C., Carre, C. G., & Carter, D. G. S. (1992). A longitudinal study of primary teachers' perceived competence in, and concerns about, national curriculum implementation. Research Papers in Education, 7, 53-78.
17. Betts, J. R., & Costrell, R. M. (2001). Incentives and equity under standards-based reform. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy: 2001 (pp. 9-74). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
18. Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 21-29.
19. Bishop, J. (1998). Do curriculum-based external exit exam systems enhance student achievement? (CPRE Research Rep. RR-40). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
20. Bishop, J. H., & Mane, F. (1999). The New York state reform strategy: The incentive effects of minimum competency exams. Philadelphia: National Center on Education in Inner Cities.
21. Black, P. J. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education, 21, 49-97.
22. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-73.
23. Borko, H., & Elliott, R. (1999). Hands-on pedagogy versus hands-off accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 394-400.
24. Borko, H., Elliott, R., & Uchiyama, K. (1999, April). Professional development: A key to Kentucky's educational reform effort. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
25. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for detecting biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. 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.
27. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
28. Carnoy, M., Loeb, S., & Smith, T. (2001). Do higher state test scores in Texas make for better high school outcomes? (CPRE Research Rep. RR-047). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
29. Cimbricz, S. (2003). State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practice. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n2.html
30. Cizek, G. J. (2000). Pockets of resistance in the education revolution. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(1), 16-23, 33.
31. Clarke, M., Shore, A., Rhoades, K., Abrams, L., Miao, J., & Li, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing' programs on teaching and learning: Findings from interviews with educators in low-, medium-, and high-stakes states. Boston: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
32. Clotfelter, C. T., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 23-63). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
33. Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11-17.
34. Cole, N. S., & Moss, P. A. (1989). Bias in test use. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 201-219). New York: Macmillan.
35. Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment. (2001). Building tests to support instruction and accountability (report prepared for American Association of School Administrators, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association, and National Middle School Association). Washington, DC: Author.
36. Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1988). Raising the stakes in statewide mandatory minimum competency testing. In W. L. Boyd & C. T. Kerchner (Eds.), The politics of excellence and choice in education: The 1987 Politics of Education Association yearbook (pp. 27-39). New York: Falmer Press.
37. Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1991). Two state minimum competency testing programs and their effects on curriculum and instruction. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. I. Effects of mandated assessment on teaching (pp. 7-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
38. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on the validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.
40. Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). The implications of testing policy for quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 220-225.
41. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we need. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/ Content.asp?ContentID=11109
42. Darling-Hammond, L., & Wise, A. E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 85, 315-336.
43. Deere, D., & Strayer, W. (2003). Competitive incentives: School accountability and student outcomes in Texas. Unpublished working paper.
44. Dunbar, S. B., Koretz, D. M., & Hoover, H. D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 289-303.
45. Dwyer, C. A. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: Theory and practice. Assessment in Education, 5, 131-137.
46. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. S. (2002). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system (NBER Working Paper W9307). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
48. Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95-113.
49. Frederickson, N. (1994). The influence of minimum competency tests on teaching and learning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center.
50. Gifford, B. R., & O'Connor, M. C. (1992). Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction. Boston: Kluwer.
51. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 355-392). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
52. Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18, 519-521.
53. Glaser, R., Linn, R., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1997). Assessment in transition: Monitoring the nation's educational progress. New York: National Academy of Education.
54. Glass, G. V. (1976). Standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 237-261.
55. Goldhaber, D., & Hannaway, J. (2001, November). Accountability with a kicker: Observations on the Florida A+ Accountability Plan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Public Policy and Management, Washington, DC.
56. Goslin, D. A. (1963). Teachers and testing. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
57. Greene, J. P., Winters, M. A., & Forster, G. (2003). Testing high-stakes tests: Can we believe the results of accountability tests? (Civic Rep. 33). New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
58. Grissmer, D. W., & Flanagan, A. (1998). Exploring rapid score gains in Texas and North Carolina. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
59. Grissmer, D. W., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., & Williamson, S. (2000). Improving student achievement: What state NAEP scores tell us (Publication MR-924-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
60. Haertel, E. H. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 662-666.
61. Hambleton, R. K., & Murphy, E. (1992). A psychometric perspective on authentic measurement. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 1-16.
62. Hambleton, R. K., & Slater, S. C. (1995). Do policymakers and educators understand NAEP reports? Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
63. Hamilton, L. S. (1998). Gender differences on high school science achievement tests: Do format and content matter? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 179-195.
64. Hamilton, L. S. (1999). Detecting gender-based differential item functioning on a constructed-response science test. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 211-235.
65. Hamilton, L. S., Klein, S. P., & Lorie, W. (2000). Using Web-based testing for large-scale assessments. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
66. Hamilton, L. S., & Koretz, D. M. (2002). Tests and their use in test-based accountability systems. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education (pp. 13-49). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
67. Hamilton, L. S., Nussbaum, E. M., & Snow, R. E. (1997). Interview procedures for validating science assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 181-200.
68. Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2002). Improving test-based accountability. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education (pp. 121-144). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
69. Haney, W. (1981). Validity, Vaudeville, and values: A short history of social concerns over standardized testing. American Psychologist, 36, 1021-1034.
70. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
71. Hannaway, J., & McKay, S. (2001). Taking measure. Education Next, 1(3). Retrieved from http://www.educationnext.org/20013/6hannaway.html
72. Jacob, B. A. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 99-122.
73. Jacob, B. A. (2002). Accountability, incentives, and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools (NBER Working Paper 8968). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
74. Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2002). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating (NBER Working Paper 9413). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
75. Jaeger, R. M. (1982). The final hurdle: Minimum competency achievement testing. In G. R. Austin & H. Garber (Eds.), The rise and fall of national test scores. New York: Academic Press.
76. Jones, G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199-203.
77. 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 (pp. 235-269). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
78. Katz, I. R., Martinez, M. E., Sheehan, K. M., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (1993). Extending the rule space model to a semantically-rich domain: Diagnostic assessment in architecture. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
79. Kelley, C., Odden, A., Milanowski, A., & Heneman, H. (2000). The motivational effects of school-based performance awards (CPRE Policy Brief RB-29). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
80. 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.
81. Klein, S. P., Jovanovic, J., Stecher, B. M., McCaffrey, D., Shavelson, R. J., Haertel, E., Solano-Flores, G., & Comfort, K. (1997). Gender and racial/ethnic differences on performance assessments in science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 83-97.
82. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effect of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
83. Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30-43.
84. Koretz, D. (1988). Arriving at Lake Wobegon: Are standardized tests exaggerating achievement and distorting instruction? American Educator, 12(2), 8-15, 46-52.
85. Koretz, D. (1992). State and national assessment. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1262-1267). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
86. Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. 431). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
87. Koretz, D. (2003a, April). Attempting to discern the effects of the NCLB accountability provisions on learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
88. Koretz, D. (2003b). Using multiple measures to address perverse incentives and score inflation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(2), 18-26.
89. Koretz, D. M., & Barron, S. I. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
90. Koretz, D., Barron, S., Mitchell, K., & Stecher, B. (1996). The perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (Publication MR-792-PCT/FF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
91. Koretz, D. M., & Deibert, E. (1993). Interpretations of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) anchor points and achievement levels by the print media in 1991. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
92. Koretz, D., & Deibert, E. (1996). Setting standards and interpreting achievement: A cautionary tale from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Assessment, 3, 53-81.
93. Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Teachers' responses to high-stakes testing and the validity of gains: A pilot study (CSE Tech. Rep. 610). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
94. Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2000). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance, and validity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 255-272.
95. Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (in press). K-12 group testing. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed.). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
96. Koretz, D. M., Linn, R. L., Dunbar, S. B., & Shepard, L. A. (1991, April). The effects of high-stakes testing on achievement: Preliminary findings about generalization across tests. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
97. Koretz, D. M., McCaffrey, D. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2001). Toward a framework for validating gains under high-stakes conditions (CSE Tech. Rep. 551). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
98. Koretz, D., Mitchell, K., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). The perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (CSE Tech. Rep. 409). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
99. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(3), 5-16.
100. Kupermintz, H. (2002). Teacher effects as a measure of teacher effectiveness: Construct validity considerations in TVAAS (Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System) (CSE Tech. Rep. 563). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
101. Ladd, H. F. (1999). The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 18, 1-16.
102. 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.
103. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (in press). The impact of a state performance-based assessment and accountability program on mathematics instruction and student learning: Evidence from survey data and school performance. Educational Assessment.
104. Lane, S., Wang, N., & Magone, M. (1996). Gender related differential item functioning on a middle-school mathematics performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 21-27, 31.
105. Lillard, D. R., & DeCicca, P. P. (2001). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across time. Economics of Education Review, 20, 459-473.
106. Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1-16.
107. Linn, R. L. (1994). Criterion-referenced measurement: A valuable perspective clouded by surplus meaning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(4), 12-14.
108. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
109. Linn, R. L. (2001). The design and evaluation of educational assessment and accountability systems (CSE Tech. Rep. 539). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
110. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
111. Linn, R. L., Dunbar, S. B., Harnisch, D. L., & Hastings, C. N. (1982). The validity of the Title I Evaluation and Reporting System. In E. R. House, S. Mathison, J. Pearsol, & H. Preskill (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 7, pp. 427-442). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
112. Linn, R. L., Graue, M. E., & Sanders, N. M. (1990). Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that "everyone is above average." Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9, 5-14.
113. Linn, R. L., & Haug, C. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 29-36.
114. Linn, R. L., Koretz, D. M., Baker, E. L., & Burstein, L. (1992). The validity and credibility of the achievement levels for the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics (CSE Tech. Rep. 330). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
115. Mabry, L. (1999). Writing to the rubric: Lingering effects of traditional standardized testing on direct writing assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 673-679.
116. Mabry, L., Poole, J., Redmond, L., & Schultz, A. (2003). Local impact of state testing in southwest Washington. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(22). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n22/
117. Madaus, G. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In L. Tanner (Ed.), Critical issues in curriculum: 87th yearbook of the NSSE, Part 1 (pp. 83-121). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
118. Madaus, G. (1993). A national testing system: Manna from above? A historical/technological perspective. Educational Assessment, 1, 9-26.
119. Madaus, G. F., & O'Dwyer, L. M. (1999). A short history of performance assessment: Lessons learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 688-695.
120. Massell, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based systemic reform in nine states (CPRE Policy Brief RB-21). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
121. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
122. McDonnell, L. M. (2002). Accountability as seen through a political lens. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education (pp. 101-120). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
123. McDonnell, L. M., & Choisser, C. (1997). Testing and teaching: Local implementation of new state assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. 442). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
124. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 729-734.
125. Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(13). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ epaa/v6n13.html
126. Mehrens, W. A. (2000). Defending a state graduation test: GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency. Measurement perspectives from an external evaluator. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 387-401.
127. Mehrens, W. A., & Kaminski, J. (1989). Methods for improving standardized test scores: Fruitful, fruitless or fraudulent? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(1), 14-22.
128. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-104). New York: Macmillan.
129. Meyer, L., Orlofsky, G. F., Skinner, R. A., & Spicer, S. (2002). The state of the states. Education Week, 21(17), 68-92.
130. Miller, M. D. (1998). Teacher uses and perceptions of the impact of statewide performance-based assessments. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, State Education Assessment Center.
131. Miller, M. D., & Seraphine, A. E. (1993). Can test scores remain authentic when teaching to the test? Educational Assessment, 1, 119-129.
132. Millman, J., & Greene, J. (1989). The specification and development of tests of achievement and ability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 335-366). New York: Macmillan.
133. National Assessment Governing Board. (2002). Using the National Assessment of Educational Progress to confirm state test results. Washington, DC: Author.
134. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1988). NAEYC position statement on standardized testing of young children 3 through 8 years of age, adopted November 1987. Young Children, 43(3), 42-47.
135. National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
136. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
137. National Council on Education Standards and Testing. (1992). Raising standards for American education. Washington, DC: Author.
138. National Research Council. (1999a). Grading the nation's report card: Evaluating NAEP and transforming the assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
139. National Research Council. (1999b). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
140. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
141. O'Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
142. O'Day, J., Goertz, M. E., & Floden, R. E. (1995). Building capacity for education reform (CPRE Policy Brief RB-18). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
143. Olson, L. (2003). Legal twists, digital turns. Education Week, 22(35), 11-14, 16.
144. Parkes, J., & Stevens, J. J. (2003). Legal issues in school accountability systems. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 141-158.
145. Pedulla, J. J., Abrams, L. M., Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., Ramos, M. A., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Boston: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
146. Phelps, R. P. (2000). Trends in large-scale testing outside the United States. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(1), 11-21.
147. Phillips, M., & Chin, T. (2001). Comment on Betts & Costrell. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy: 2001 (pp. 61-66). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
148. Phillips, S. E. (2000). GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency: Psychometric evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 343-385.
149. Pipho, C. (1985). Tracking the reforms, Part 5: Testing - Can it measure the success of the reform movement? Education Week, 4(35), 19.
150. Popham, W. J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 679-682.
151. Popham, W. J., Cruse, K. L., Rankin, S. C., Sandifer, P. D., & Williams, P. L. (1985). Measurement-driven instruction: It's on the road. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 628-634.
152. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
153. Public Agenda. (2000). Survey finds little sign of backlash against academic standards or standardized tests. Retrieved from http://www. publicagenda.org/issues/pcc_detail
154. Quality counts. (2002). Education Week, 21(17). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.com/sreports/qc02/
155. Reckase, M. D. (1997, March). Consequential validity from the test developers' perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
156. Resnick, D. P. (1982). History of educational testing. In A. K. Wigdor & W. R. Garner (Eds.), Ability testing: Uses, consequences, and controversies, Part II (pp. 173-194). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
157. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessment: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer.
158. Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 197-227.
159. Roderick, M., Jacob, B. A., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 333-357.
160. Roeber, E. (1988, February). A history of large-scale testing activities at the state level. Paper presented at the Indiana Governor's Symposium on ISTEP, Madison, IN.
161. Rogosa, D. (2003). Confusions about consistency in improvement. Retrieved from http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~rag/api/consist.pdf
162. Romberg, T. A., Zarinia, E. A., & Williams, S. R. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers' perceptions. Madison: National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
163. Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., & Resnick, L. B. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (CSE Tech. Rep. 566). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
164. Russell, M., & Haney, W. (1997). Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n3.html
165. Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional assessments. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
166. Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
167. Schemo, D. J. (2003, July 11). Questions on data cloud luster of Houston schools. New York Times, p. A1.
168. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21(4), 22-27.
169. Shepard, L. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? (CSE Tech. Rep. 342). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
170. Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association and National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
171. Smith, M. L. (1994). Old and new beliefs about measurement-driven instruction: "The more things change, the more they stay the same" (CSE Tech. Rep. 373). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
172. Smith, M. L., Edelsky, C., Draper, K., Rottenberg, C., & Cherland, M. (1991). The role of testing in elementary schools (CSE Tech. Rep. 321). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
173. Smith, M. L., Noble, A., Heinecke, W., Seck, M., Parish, C., Cabay, M., Junker, S., Haag, S., Tayler, K., Safran, Y., Penley, Y., & Bradshaw, A. (1997). Reforming schools by reforming assessment: Consequences of the Arizona Student Assessment Program (ASAP): Equity and teacher capacity building (CSE Tech. Rep. 425). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
174. Smith, M. L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991). Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(4), 7-11.
175. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1990). Systemic school reform. In Politics of Education Association yearbook 1990 (pp. 233-267). London: Taylor & Francis.
176. Smith, M. S., O'Day, J., & Cohen, D. K. (1990). National curriculum American style: Can it be done? What might it look like? American Educator, 14(4), 10-17, 40-47.
177. Solano-Flores, G., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 553-573.
178. Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185-203.
179. Stake, R. (1999). The goods on American education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 668-670.
180. Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practices. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education (pp. 79-100). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
181. Stecher, B. M., & Barron, S. I. (1999). Quadrennial milepost accountability testing in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. 505). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
182. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S. I., Chun, T., & Ross, K. (2000). The effects of the Washington state education reform on schools and classrooms (CSE Tech. Rep. 525). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
183. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S. I., Kaganoff, T., & Goodwin, J. (1998). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing (CSE Tech. Rep. 482). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
184. Stecher, B. M., & Chun, T. (2001). School and classroom practices during two years of education reform in Washington state (CSE Tech. Rep. 550). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
185. Stecher, B. M., Hamilton, L. S., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child behind. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
186. Stecher, B. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (1995). Portfolio driven reform: Vermont teachers' understanding of mathematical problem solving (CSE Tech. Rep. 400). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
187. Stone, C. A., & Lane, S. (2003). Consequences of a state accountability program: Examining relationships between school performance gains and teacher, student, and school variables. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 1-26.
188. Stufflebeam, D. L., Jaeger, R. M., & Scriven, M. (1991). Summative evaluation of the National Assessment Governing Board's inaugural 1990-91 effort to set achievement levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center.
189. Swanson, C., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 1-27.
190. Taylor, G., Shepard, L., Kinner, F., & Rosenthal, J. (2003). A survey of teachers' perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost (CSE Tech. Rep. 588). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
191. Tepper, R. L. (2002). The influence of high-stakes testing on instructional practice in Chicago. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harris Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Chicago.
192. Texas Education Agency. (2000, May 17). Texas TAAS passing rates hit seven-year high; four out of every five students pass exam (press release). Austin, TX: Author.
193. Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439-450.
194. Tittle, C. (1989). Validity: Whose construction is it in the teaching and learning context? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8, 5-13.
195. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1992). Testing in America's schools: Asking the right questions (Publication OTA-SET-519). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
196. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind fact sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
197. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Title I: Characteristics of tests will influence expenses; information sharing may help states realize efficiencies (Publication GAO-03-389). Washington, DC: Author.
198. Ward, J. (1980). Teachers and testing: A survey of knowledge and attitudes. In L. M. Rudner (Ed.), Testing in our schools (pp. 48-72). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
199. Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research Monograph 8). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
200. Webster, W., & Mendro, R. (1997). The Dallas Value-Added Accountability System. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 81-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
201. Wenger, E. (1987). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
202. Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating tests worth taking. Educational Leadership, 49, 26-33.
203. Winfield, L. F. (1990). School competency testing reforms and student achievement: Exploring a national perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 157-173.
204. Wolf, S. A., Borko, H., McIver, M. C., & Elliott, R. (1999). "No excuses": School reform efforts in exemplary schools of Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. 514). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
205. Wolf, S. A., & McIver, M. C. (1999). When process becomes policy. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 401-406.
206. Zernike, K. (2001, May 4). Suburban mothers succeed in their boycott of an 8th-grade test. New York Times, p. A19.
207. Zwick, R., & Ercikan, K. (1989). Analysis of differential item functioning in the NAEP history assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 55-66.