A framework for evaluating and planning assessments intended to improve student achievement

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 14-23

  Nichols, Paul D ^a   Meyers, Jason L ^a   Burling, Kelly S ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagnostic assessment; Formative assessment; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 69949151285     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00150.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Akhras, F. N., & Self, J. A. (2002). Beyond intelligent tutoring systems: Situations, interactions, processes and affordances. Instructional Science, 30, 1 30. (Pubitemid 37132908)
2. Baker, E. L. (2004). Aligning curriculum, standards, and assessments: Fulfilling the promise of school reform. CSE Report 645. Los Angeles, CA : Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE)/National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Educational Assessment: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7 74.
4. Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 22 (4 4 54.
5. Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills. Cognitive Science, 2, 155 192.
6. Coombs, C. H., Raiffa, H., & Thrall, R. M. (1954). Some views on mathematical models and measurement theory. Psychological Review, 61, 132 144.
7. Fu, J., & Li, Y. (2007, April). Cognitively diagnostic psychometric models: An integrative review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
8. Green, D. R. (1998). Consequential aspects of the validity of achievement tests: A publisher's point of view. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17 (2 16 19, 34.
9. Haertel, E., & Wiley, D. (1993). Representations of ability structures: Implications for testing. In N. Fredrickson, R. Mislevy & I. Bejar (Eds Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 359 384). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527 535.
11. Kane, M. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319 342.
12. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17 64). Washington, DC : The National Council on Measurement in Education & the American Council on Education.
13. Kelly, A. E., & Sleeman, D. (1986). A study of diagnostic and remedial techniques used by master algebra teachers. Tech. Rep. AUCSiTR8708. Aberdeen, Scotland : University of Aberdeen, Department of Computer Science.
14. Martinak, R., Schneider, B., & Sleeman, D. (1987, April). A comparative analysis of approaches for correcting algebra errors via an intelligent tutoring system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
15. Mehrens, W. A. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16 (2 16 18.
16. Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012 1027.
17. Messick, S. (1981). Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 10 (9 9 20.
18. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed Educational Measurement (pp. 13 103). Washington, DC : American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.
19. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
20. Putnam, R. T. (1987). Structuring and adjusting content for students: A study of live and simulated tutoring of addition. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 13 48.
21. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
22. Reckase, M. (1998). Consequential validity from the test developer's perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17 (2 13 16.
23. Resnick, L. (1984). Beyond error analysis: The role of understanding in elementary school arithmetic. Pittsburgh, PA : University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
24. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 77 84.
25. Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
26. Sleeman, D. H., & Brown, J. S. (Eds 1982). Intelligent tutoring systems. New York : Academic Press.
27. Sleeman, D., Kelly, A. E., Martinak, R., Ward, R. D., & Moore, J. L. (1989). Studies of diagnosis and remediation with high school algebra students. Cognitive Science, 13, 551 568.
28. Stiggins, R. J. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20 (1 5 15.
29. Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (4 324 328.
30. Swan, M. B. (1983). Teaching decimal place value: A comparative study of conflict and positively-only approaches. Research Rep. No. 31. Nottingham, UK : University of Nottingham, Sheel Center for Mathematical Education.
31. Tittle, C. K. (1994). Toward an educational psychology of assessment for teaching and learning: Theories, contexts, and validation arguments. Educational Psychologist, 29, 149 162.
32. VanLehn, K. (1998). Analogy events: How examples are used during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 22 (3 347 388.
33. Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11 (3 & 4 283 289.
34. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996) Meaning and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment British Educational Research Journal, 22 (5 537 548.