Modeling the predictive validity of SAT mathematics items using item characteristics

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 72, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 99-119

  Kobrin, Jennifer L ^a   Kim, YoungKoung ^a   Sackett, Paul R ^b  

^a Office of Academic Affairs   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

college outcomes; mathematics items; test validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863120188     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164411404410     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Atkinson R.C.,Geiser S.Reflections on a century of college admissions tests.Educational Researcher. 2009;38:665-676.
2. Bennett R.E., On the meanings of constructed response, Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement. Bennett R.E.Ward W.C., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:1-27.
3. Breland H.M.,Camp R.,Jones R.J.,Morris M.M.,Rock D.A.Assessing writing skill. New York, NY: College Board; 1987:.
4. Bridgeman B.Essays and multiple choice tests as predictors of college freshman GPA.Research in Higher Education. 1991;32:319-332.
5. Bridgeman B.A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended and multiple-choice formats.Journal of Educational Measurement. 1992;29:253-271.
6. Bridgeman B.,Lewis C.Sex differences in the relationship of Advanced Placement essay and multiple-choice scores to grades in college courses. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1991:.
7. Dorans N.J.,Lawrence I.M.The internal construct validity of the SAT. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 1987:.
8. Doub T.W.,Lawrence I.M.Item-level dimensionality of SAT I verbal and mathematical reasoning tests. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association; New York, NY.
9. Enright M.K.,Morley M.,Sheehan K.M.Items by design: The impact of systematic feature variation on item statistical characteristics.Applied Measurement in Education. 2002;15:49-74.
10. Ewing M.,Huff K.,Andrews M.,King K.Assessing the reliability of skills measured by the SAT. New York, NY: College Board; 2005:.
11. Geiser S.,Studley R.UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California.Educational Assessment. 2002;8:1-26.
12. Gierl M.J.,Tan X.,Wang C.Identifying content and cognitive dimensions on the SAT. New York, NY: College Board; 2005:.
13. Haladyna T.M.Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. London, England: Psychology Press; 2004:.
14. Kaminski J.A.,Sloutsky V.M.,Heckler A.F.The advantage of abstract examples in learning math.Science. 2008;320:454-455.
15. Kobrin J.L.,Camara W.J.,Milewski G.B.The utility of the SAT I and SAT II for admissions decisions in California and the nation. New York, NY: College Board; 2002:.
16. Kobrin J.L.,Patterson B.F.,Shaw E.J.,Mattern K.D.,Barbuti S.M.Validity of the SAT for predicting first-year college grade point average. New York, NY: College Board; 2008:.
17. Koedinger K.R.,Alibali M.W.,Nathan M.J.Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving.Cognitive Science. 2008;32:366-397.
18. Koedinger K.R.,Nathan M.J.The real story behind story problems: Effects of representation on quantitative reasoning.Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2004;13:129-164.
19. Linn R.,Baker E.L.,Dunbar S.B.Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria.Educational Researcher. 1991;20 (8): 15-21.
20. McDonald M.Systematic assessment of learning outcomes: Developing multiple-choice exams. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett; 2002:.
21. Report of the Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admissions. Arlington, VA: Author; 2008:.
22. Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; 2009:.
23. National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation's human capital (NSB-10-33). Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf.
24. Nunes T.,Schliemann A.D.,Carraher D.W.Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993:.
25. OhH.SathyV. (2006). Construct comparability and continuity in the SAT (Unpublished research report). New York, NY: College Board.
26. O'Neill K.A.,McPeek W.M., Item and test characteristics that are associated with differential item functioning, Differential item functioning. Holland P.Wainer H., ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993:255-336.
27. Ramist L.,Lewis C.,McCamley-Jenkins L., Using achievement tests/SAT II Subject Tests to demonstrate achievement and predict college grades: Sex, language, ethnic, and parental education groups. (College Board Research Report No. 2001-5). New York: College Board.
28. Roussos L.A.,Norton L.L., (1998, March). LSAT item-type validity study (Tech. Rep. 98-01). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
29. Ryan A.M.,Greguras G.J.Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection. Hakel M.D., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence A. Erlbaum; 1998:183-202.
30. Sebrechts M.M.,Enright M.,Bennett R.E.,Martin K.Using algebra word problems to assess quantitative ability: Attributes, strategies, and errors.Cognition and Instruction. 1996;14:285-343.
31. Vasavada N.,Carman E.,Hart B.,Luisier D.Common core state standards alignment: ReadiStep, PSAT/NMSQT and SAT. New York, NY: College Board; 2010:.