Design and development issues in provincial large-scale assessments: Designing assessments to inform policy and practice

Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation

Volumn 22, Issue 3 SPEC. ISSUE, 2007, Pages 53-71

  Ercikan, Kadriye ^a   Barclay McKeown, Stephanie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054701110     PISSN: 08341516     EISSN: 00077720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Aitkin, M., & Longford, N. (1986). Statistical modelling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society), 149, 1-43.
2. Baxter, G.P., & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 37-45.
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5, 1-57.
4. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2007). Graduation program requirements. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from .
5. Carnoy, M. (2005). Have state accountability and high-stakes tests influenced student progression rates in high school? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 19-31. (Pubitemid 41826126)
6. Chudowsky, N., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2003). Large-scale assessments that support learning: What will it take? Theory into Practice, 42, 75-83. (Pubitemid 36420105)
7. Coe, R., & Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1998). School effectiveness research: Criticisms and recommendations. Oxford Review of Education, 24, 421-438. (Pubitemid 128542135)
8. Cowley, P., & Easton, S. (2006, April). Report card on secondary schools in British Columbia and Yukon: 2006 edition. Vancouver, BC: Fraser Institute.
9. Crundwell, R.M. (2005). Alternative strategies for large scale student assessment in Canada: Is value-added assessment one possible answer? Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 41, 1-21.
10. Earl, L.M. (1999). Assessment and accountability in education: Improvement or surveillance. Education Canada, 39, 4-6.
11. Ercikan, K. (2004, March). Limits and constraints on interpretations from large-scale assessments. Paper presented at the UBC Assessment Conference, Vancouver, BC.
12. Ercikan, K. (2006a, October). Assessment, accountability, and equity. Paper presented at the British Columbia Teachers Federation Conference: Counting What Counts, Vancouver, BC.
13. Ercikan, K. (2006b). Developments in assessment of student learning and achievement. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (Eds.), American Psychological Association, Division 15, Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 929-952). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Ercikan, K. (2006c). Examining guidelines for developing accurate proficiency level scores. Canadian Journal of Education, 29, 823-838.
15. Ercikan, K., & Julian, M. (2002). Classification accuracy of assigning student performance to proficiency levels: Guidelines for assessment design. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 269-294. (Pubitemid 37110356)
16. Gao, X., Shavelson, R.J., & Baxter, G.P. (1994). Generalizability of largescale performance assessments in science: Promises and problems. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 323-342.
17. Gibson, A., & Asthana, S. (1998). Schools, pupils and examination results: contextualising school performance, British Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 255-268.
18. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355-392.
19. Glaser, R., & Baxter, G.P. (2002). Cognition and construct validity: Evidence for the nature of cognitive performance in assessment situations. In H. Braun, D. Jackson, & D. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 179-191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Goldstein, H. (1997). Methods in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 369-395. (Pubitemid 127490973)
21. Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J., Yang, M., Woodhouse, G., Pan, H., Nuttall, D., & Thomas, S. (1992). Multilevel models for comparing schools. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter, 4(2), 5-6.
22. Goldstein, H., & Spiegelhalter, D. 1996. League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance. Journal of Royal Statistical Association, 159, 385-443. (Pubitemid 126333152)
23. Goldstein, H., & Thomas, S. (1996). Using examination results as indicators of school and college performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society), 159(1), 149-163. (Pubitemid 126331640)
24. Goldstein, H., & Woodhouse, G. (2000). School effectiveness and educational policy. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3/4), 253-363.
25. Gray, J., Jesson, D., Goldstein, H., Hedger, K., & Rasbash, J. (1995). A multi-level analysis of school improvement: Changes in schools' performance over time. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(2), 97-114.
26. Leighton, J.P. (2004). Avoiding misconception, misuse, and missed opportunities: The collection of verbal reports in educational achievement testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(4), 6-15.
27. Linn, R.L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1-16.
28. Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-16.
29. Linn, R.L., Baker, E.A., & Dunbar, S. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 15-21.
30. Mislevy, R., Wilson, M., Ercikan, K., & Chudowsky, N. (2002). Psychometric principles in student evaluation. In D. Nevo & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 478-520). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
31. Morrison, H.G., & Cowan, P.C. (1996). The state schools book: A critique of a league table. British Educational Research Journal, 22, 241-249.
32. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
33. Nichols, P.D. (1994). A framework for developing cognitively diagnostic assessments. Review of Educational Research, 64, 575-603.
34. Opdenakker, M-C., & Van Damme, J. ( 2001). Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effects on mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 407-432. (Pubitemid 33322288)
35. Resnick, L. (2006, Spring). Making accountability really count. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(1), 33-37. (Pubitemid 43388359)
36. Schafer, W. (2003). A state perspective on multiple measures in school accountability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(2), 27-31.
37. Schafer, W.D., & Moody, M. (2004). Designing accountability assessments for teaching. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9, 14. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from .
38. Schagen, I., & Hutchinson, D. (2003) Adding value to educational research: The marriage of data and analytical power. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 749-765. (Pubitemid 37325185)
39. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-14.
40. Shepard, L., & Kirst, M.W. (1991). Interview on assessment issues with Lorie Shepard. Educational Researcher, 20, 21-25.
41. Sicoly, F. (2002). Stability of school-level scores from large-scale student assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 173-185. (Pubitemid 37110361)
42. Stone, J.E. (1999). Value added assessment: An accountability revolution. In M. Kanstoroom and C.E. Finn, Jr. (Eds.), Better teachers, better schools (pp. 239-250). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
43. Taylor, A.R., & Tubianosa, T. (2001). Student assessment in Canada: Improving the learning environment through effective evaluation. Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.
44. Thorpe, G. (2006). Multilevel analysis of PISA 2000 reading results for the United Kingdom using pupil scale variables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 33-62. (Pubitemid 43256584)
45. Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 181-208.
46. Yang, M., & Goldstein, H. (1999). The use of assessment data for school improvement purposes. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 469-483.