Further steps toward the development of an accountability-oriented science of measurement

The Future of Test-Based Educational Accountability

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 71-91

  Koretz, Daniel ^a  

^a HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 76549094846     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203895092     Document Type: Chapter

References (49)

1. Braun, H. & Qian, J. (2007). An enhanced method for mapping state standards onto the NAEP scale. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales. New York: Springer-Verlag.
2. Brennan, R. L., Yin, P., & Kane, M. T. (2003). Methodology for examining the reliability of group mean difference scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40 (3), 207-230.
3. Burstein, L., Koretz, D., Linn, R., Baker, E., Sugrue, B., Novak, J., et al. (1995/1996). Describing performance standards: The validity of the 1992 NAEP achievement level descriptors as characterizations of mathematics performance. Educational Assessment, 3 (1), 9-51.
4. Cronbach, L. J., Linn, R. L., Brennan, R. L., & Haertel, E. H. (1997). Generalizability analysis for performance assessments of student achievement or school effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57 (3), 373-399.
5. Dillon, S. (2006, November 7). As 2 Bushes try to fix schools, the tools differ. New York Times. Online, available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60C13FC3D540C7B8EDDA00894DE404482 (accessed November 7, 2006).
6. Dranove, D., Kessler, D., McClellan, M., & Satterthwaite, M. (2003). Is more information better? The effects of "report cards" on health care providers. Journal of Political Economy, 111 (3), 555-588.
7. Figlio, D. N. & Getzler, L. S. (2002) Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system? (Working Paper 9370). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Online, available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9307 (accessed November 7, 2006).
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: Policy Analysis for California Education.
9. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind (MG589). Santa Monica: RAND. Online, available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG589.pdf (accessed June 26, 2007).
10. Heckman, J. J., Heinrich, C., & Smith, J. (2002). The performance of performance standards. Journal of Human Resources, 37 (4), 778-811.
11. Ho, A. D. & Haertel, E. H. (2006). Metric-free measures of test score trends and gaps with policy-relevant examples. CSE Technical Report 665. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
12. Holland, P. W. & Dorans, N. J. (2006). Linking and equating. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 187-220). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
13. Hoover, H. D. (1984). The most appropriate scores for measuring educational development in the elementary schools: GEs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 3 (4), 8-14.
14. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89 (5-6), 761-796.
15. Jacob, B. A. (2007). Test-based accountability and student achievement: An investigation of differential performance on NAEP and state assessments (Working Paper 12817). Cambridge, MA:National Bureau of Economic Research. Online, available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12817 (accessed November 7, 2006).
16. Jaeger, R. M. (1989). Certification of student competence. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 485-514). New York: American Council on Education/MacMillan.
17. Kane, M. T. (1982). A sampling model for validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6 (2), 125-160.
18. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17-64). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
19. Kane, M. T. & Brennan, R. L. (1977). The generalizability of class means. Review of Educational Research, 47 (1), 267-292.
20. Kane, T. J. & Staiger, D. O. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (4), 91-114.
21. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? (Issue Paper IP-202). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Online, available at:http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP202/ (accessed January 12, 2004).
22. Koretz, D. (2007). Using aggregate-level linkages for estimation and validation: Comments on Thissen & Braun & Qian. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 339-353). New York: Springer-Verlag.
23. Koretz, D. & Barron, S. I. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (MR-1014-EDU). Santa Monica: RAND.
24. Koretz, D. & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531-578). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
25. Koretz, D. & McCaffrey, D. (2005). Using IRT DIF methods to evaluate the validity of score gain (CSE Technical Report 660). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
26. Koretz, D., McCaffrey, D., & Hamilton, L. (2001). Toward a framework for validating gains under high-stakes conditions (CSE Technical Report 551). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
27. Koretz, D., Linn, R. L., Dunbar, S. B., & Shepard, L. A. (1991, April). The effects of high-stakes testing: Preliminary evidence about generalization across tests. In R. L. Linn (Chair), The effects of high stakes testing. Symposium conducted at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
28. 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: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
29. Lindquist, E. F. (1951). Preliminary considerations in objective test construction. In E. F. Linquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 119-158). Washington: American Council on Education.
30. Linn, R. L. (1997). Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of test use. Educational Measurement, 16 (2), 14-16.
31. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (2), 4-16.
32. Linn, R. L. (2003). Performance standards: Utility for different uses of assessments. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (31). Online, available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n31/ (accessed October 20, 2003).
33. Linn, R. L. (2007, January). Educational accountability systems. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los Angeles.
34. Linn, R. L. & Dunbar, S. B. (1990). The nation's report card goes home: Good news and bad about trends in achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 72 (2), October, 127-133.
35. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20 (8), 15-21.
36. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating valueadded models for teacher accountability (MG-158-EDU). Santa Monica: RAND.
37. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., Louis, T. A., & Hamilton, L. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29 (1), 67-101.
38. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
39. Peterson, P. E. & West, M. R. (2006). Is your child's school effective? Don't rely on NCLB to tell you. Education Next, (6) 4, 76-80.
40. Popham, W. J. (1987). The merits of measurement-driven instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (9), 679-682.
41. Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern-wrong concept. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice, 16 (2), 9-13.
42. Raudenbush, S. (2004). Schooling, statistics, and poverty: Can we measure school improvement? The ninth annual William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
43. Reys, B. & Lappan, G. (2007). Consensus or confusion: The intended math curriculum in statelevel standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 (9), 676-680.
44. Schemo, D. J. & Fessenden, F. (2003, December 3). Gains in Houston schools: How real are they? New York Times, pp. A1, A27.
45. Shepard, L. A. (1994). Implications for standard setting of the National Academy of Education evaluation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Achievement Levels. In Proceeding of the joint conference on standard setting for large-scale assessments, Vol. II (pp. 143-160). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
46. Shepard, L. A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16 (2), 5-8, 13, 24.
47. Spencer, B. D. (1983). On interpreting test scores as social indicators: Statistical considerations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20 (4), 317-333.
48. 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.
49. Stecher, B. M. & Mitchell, K. J. (1995). Portfolio-driven reform: Vermont teachers' understanding of mathematical problem solving and related changes in classroom practice (CSE Technical Report No. 400). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.