Evaluation of the standard setting on the 2005 grade 12 national assessment of educational progress mathematics test

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 339-358

  Sireci, Stephen G ^a   Hauger, Jeffrey B ^a   Wells, Craig S ^a   Shea, Christine ^a   Zenisky, April L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 74949118456     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340903221659     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. ACT. (2005a, April). Developing achievement levels on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress in grade 12 mathematics: Executive summary. Iowa City, IA: Author.
2. ACT. (2005b, April). Developing achievement levels on the 2005 National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress in grade 12 mathematics: Process report. Iowa City, IA: Author.
3. ACT. (2005c, May). Developing achievement levels on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress in grade 12 mathematics: Special studies report. Iowa City, IA: Author.
4. ACT. (2005d, May). Developing achievement levels on the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress in grade 12 mathematics: Technical report. Iowa City, IA: Author.
5. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
6. Brennan, R. L. (2002, October). Estimated standard error of a mean when there are only two observerations. Center for Advanced Studies in Measurement and Assessment technical note number 1. Iowa City, IA: College of Education, University of Iowa.
7. Cizek, G. J. (1996). Standard setting guidelines. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(2), 20-31.
8. Cizek, G. J. (2001a). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 3-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Cizek, G. J. Ed. (2001b). Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Cizek, G. J., Bunch, B. B., & Koons, H. (2004). Setting performance standards: Contemporary methods [An NCME instructional module]. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(4), 31-50.
11. Hambleton, R. K. (2001). Setting performance standards on educational assessments and criteria for evaluating the process. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 89-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Hambleton, R. K., & Powell, S. (1990). A framework for viewing the process of standard setting. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 6, 3-24.
13. Hambleton, R. K., Brennan, R. L., Brown, W., Dodd, B., Forsythe, 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), 5-14.
14. Jaeger, R. M. (1990). Establishing standards for teacher certification tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(4), 15-20.
15. Jaeger, R. M. (2003). NAEP validity studies: Reporting the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Working Paper 2003-11). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
16. Kane, M. T. (1994). Validating the performance standards associated with passing scores. Review of Educational Research, 64, 425-461.
17. Kane, M. T. (2001). So much remains the same: Conception and status of validation in setting standards. In G. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods and perspectives (pp. 53-88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Karantonis, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2006). The bookmark standard setting method: A literature review. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(1), 4-12.
19. Lewis, D. M., Green, D. R., Mitzel, H. C., Baum, K., & Patz, R. J. (1998, April). The Bookmark procedure: Methodology and recent implementations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
20. Lewis, D. M., Mitzel, H. C., Green, D. R., & Patz, R. J. (1999). The Bookmark standard setting procedure. Monterey, CA: McGraw-Hill.
21. Linn, R. L. (1998). Validating inferences from National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement-level reporting. Applied Measurement in Education, 11, 23-47.
22. Linn, R. L., Koretz, D. M., Baker, E. L., & Burstein, L. (1991). The validity and credibility of the achievement levels for the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics. (Technical Report). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
23. Loomis, S. C., & Bourque, M. L. (2001). From tradition to innovation: Standard setting on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Standard setting: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 175-217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Meara, K. P., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (2001). Setting and validating standards on profes-sional licensure and certification exams: A survey of current practices. CLEAR Exam Review, 12(2), 17-23.
25. Mehrens, W. A., & Popham, W. J. (1992). How to evaluate the legal defensibility of high-stakes tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 265-283.
26. Mitzel, H. C., Lewis, D. M., Patz, R. J., & Green, D. R. (2001). The Bookmark procedure: Psychological perspectives. In G. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods and perspectives (pp. 249-281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. National Assessment Governing Board (2004). Mathematics framework for the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved January 24, 2007, from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/m_framework_05/761607-Math%20Framework.pdf
28. National Center for Education Statistics (2007). America's high school graduates: Results from the 2005 NAEP high school transcript study (publication number NCES 2007467) Washington, DC: Author.
29. Pellegrino, J. W., Jones, L. R., & Mitchell, K. J. (1999). Grading the nation's report card. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. Schulz, E. M., Lee, W., & Mullen, K. (2005). A domain-level approach to describing growth in achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42, 1-26.
31. Sireci, S. G., Hauger, J., Wells, C. S., Lewis, C., Delton, J., & Zenisky, A. (2007). Evaluation of the standard setting on the 2005 Grade 12 National Assessment of Educational Progress math test. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report No. 618. Amherst, MA: Center for Educational Assessment, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
32. Stufflebeam, D., Jaeger, R. M., & Scriven, M. (1991, August). Summative evaluation of the National Assessment Governing Board's inaugural 1990-91 effort to set achievement levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
33. U.S. General Accounting Office (1993). Educational achievement standards: NAGB's approach yields misleading interpretations (Rep. No. GAO-PEMD-93-12). Washington, DC: Author.
34. Vinovskis, M. A. (1998). Overseeing the nation's report card: The creation and evolution of the National Assessment Governing Board. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
35. Yin, P., & Schulz, E. M. (2005, April). A comparison of cut scores and cut score variability from Angoff-based and Bookmark-based procedures in standard setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
36. Zenisky, A. L., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (2007, March). Comprehensive evaluation of NAEP: Utility study final report. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report No. 624. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.