Self-Monitoring assessments for educational accountability systems

Measurement

Volumn 8, Issue 2-3, 2010, Pages 92-109

  Koretz, Daniel ^a   Béguin, Anton ^b  

^a HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

^b Cito ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960529492     PISSN: 15366367     EISSN: 15366359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15366367.2010.508685     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ad Hoc Committee on Confirming Test Results. (2001). Using the National Assessment of Educational Progress to confirm state test results. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
2. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 67-90.
3. Dunbar, S. B. (2008). Enhanced assessment for school accountability and student achievement. In K. E. Ryan & L. A. Shepard (Eds.), The future of test-based educational accountability (pp. 263-273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Eduwonkette. (2008, July 1). An immodest proposal. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/2008/07/an_immodest_proposal.html.
5. Feuer, M. J. (2010). Externalities of testing: Lessons from the blizzard of 2010. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8(2-3), 59-69.
6. Feuer, M. J. (2010, May). Externalities of testing: Lessons from the blizzard of 2010. In Henry I. Braun (Chair), Innovations in test-based educational accountability. Invited symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, May 1.
7. Figlio, D., & Getzler, L. S. (2006). Accountability, ability and disability: Advances in Applied Microeconomics, 14, 35-49.
8. Fischer, G. H., & Molenaar, I.W. (1995). Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments and applications. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.
9. Fitzpatrick, A. R. (2008). The impact of anchor test configuration on student proficiency rates. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(4), 34-40.
10. Glas, C. A. W., & Verhelst, N. D. (1995). Testing the Rasch model. In G. H. Fischer & I. W. Molenaar (Eds.). Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments and applications (pp. 69-96). New York: Springer-Verlag.
11. Holcombe, R. W., Jennings, J. L., & Koretz, D. M. (2010). Predictable patterns that facilitate score inflation: A comparison of New York and Massachusetts tests. Manuscript submitted for publication.
12. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.
13. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th edition, pp. 18-64). Westport, CT: Praeger.
14. Kane, M. T. (1982). A sampling model for validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6(2), 125-160.
15. 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. http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP202/
16. Koretz, D. (2007). Using aggregate-level linkages for estimation and validation: Comments on Thissen and 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.
17. Koretz, D., & Barron, S. I. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (MR-1014-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1014/
18. Koretz, D., Barron, S., Mitchell, K., & Stecher, B. (1996). The perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (MR-792-PCT/FF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
19. Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th edition, pp. 531-578. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
20. 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 presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
21. Koretz, D., & McCaffrey, D. (2005). Using IRT DIF methods to evaluate the validity of score gains (CSE Technical Report 660). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
22. 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.
23. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd edition, pp. 13-104). New York: American Council on Education/ Macmillan.
25. Morley, M. E., Bridgeman, B., & Lawless, R. R. (2004). Transfer between variants of quantitative items (GRE Board Research Report No. 00-06R). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
26. Rothstein, R. (2008). Holding accountability to account: How scholarship and experience in other fields inform exploration of performance incentives in education. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives, Vanderbilt University.
27. Rubinstein, J. (2002). The Princeton Review: Cracking the MCAS grade 10 mathematics. New York: Random House.
28. Schemo, D. J., & Fessenden, F. (2003, December 3). Gains in Houston schools: How real are they? New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/us/a-miracle-revisited-measuring-success-gains-inhouston-schools-how-real-are-they.html?pagewanted=1
29. Stecher, B. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In L. Hamilton, et al., Test-based accountability: A Guide for practitioners and policymakers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1554/MR1554.ch4.pdf
30. Stecher, B. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (1995): Portfolio driven reform: Vermont Teachers' understanding of mathematical problem solving (CSE Technical Report 400). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
31. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.