Validity evidence based on testing consequences;Evidencia de validez basada en las consecuencias del uso del test

Psicothema

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 127-135

  Lane, Suzanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Evidence of testing consequences; Standards; Test use; Validity

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; LEARNING; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; STANDARDS; TEACHING; VALIDATION STUDY;

EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMANS; LEARNING; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TEACHING; VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC;

EID: 84892894601     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: 1886144X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2013.258     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. 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.
3. Bennett, R. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8, 70-91.
4. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268.
5. Borko, H., & Elliott, R. (1999). Hands-on pedagogy versus handsoff accountability: Tensions between competing commitments for exemplary math teachers in Kentucky. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 394-400.
6. Borko, H., Wolf, S.A., Simone, G., & Uchiyama, K. (2001). Schools in transition: Reform efforts in exemplary schools of Washington. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
7. Cizek, G.J. (2012). Defining and distinguishing validity: Interpretations of score meaning and justifications of test use. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 31-43.
8. Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association (2010). Common Core Standards for English Language Arts. Retrieved on June 25, 2010 from www.corestandards.org.
9. nded., pp. 443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
10. Cronbach, L.J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11. Cronbach, L.J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3-17), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Cronbach, L.J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement theory and public policy, (pp. 147-171). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
13. Department of Education (April, 2010). Overview information: Race to the Top fund Assessment Program; Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2010. Federal Register, 75(68), 18171-18185.
14. Elmore, R.F., & Rothman, R. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school districts. National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
15. Haertel, E. (1999). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 662-667.
16. Haertel, E. (2013). How is testing supposed to improve schooling? Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11(1-2), 1-18.
17. Kane, M.T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
18. thedition, pp. 17-64). Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Praeger.
19. Kane, M.T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1-73.
20. Koretz, D., Barron, S., Mitchell, M., &Stecher, B. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Rand Corporation.
21. Lane, S., Parke, C.S., & Stone, C.A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24-28.
22. Lane, S., Parke, C.S., & Stone, C.A. (2002). The impact of a state performance-based assessment and accountability program on Mathematics instruction and student learning: Evidence from survey data and school performance. Educational Assessment, 8(4), 279-315.
23. Lane, S., & Stone, C.A. (2006). Performance assessments. In B. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement. New York: American Council on Education &Praeger.
24. Lane, S., & Stone, C.A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 23-30.
25. Lane, S., Parke, C.S., & Stone, C.A. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24-28.
26. Linn, R.L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1-6.
27. Linn, R.L. (1997). Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 14-16).
28. Linn, R.L. (2009). The concept of validity in the context of NCLB. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity (pp. 195-212). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
29. Linn, R. L, Baker, E.L., & Betebenner, D.W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
30. Marion, S. (April 16, 2010). Developing a Theory of Action: A foundation of the NIA Response. Retrieved on August 2, 2010 from http://www. nciea.org/papers-TheoryofAction_041610.pdf.
31. Marion, S.F., &Perie, M. (2009). An introduction to validity arguments for alternate assessments. In W.D. Schafer & R.W. Lissitz (Eds.), Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Policy, practice, and potential (pp. 321-334). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
32. McDonnell, L.M., &Choisser, C. (1997). Testing and teaching: Local imp mentation of new state assessments. CSE Technical Report 442. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
33. Mehrens, W.A. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 16-18.
34. rded., pp. 13-104). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
35. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
36. Michaels, H., & Ferrara, S. (1999). Evolution of educational reform in Maryland: Using data to drive state and policy local reform. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of Educational Policy. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37. Parke, C.S., & Lane, S. (2008). Examining alignment between state performance assessment and mathematics classroom activities. Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 132-147.
38. Parke, C.S., Lane, S., & Stone, C.A. (2006). Impact of a state performance assessment program in reading and writing. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 239-269.
39. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (June 23, 2010). Application for the Race to the Top Comprehensive Assessment Systems, Competition. Retrieved on September 18, 2010 from http:// www.fldoe.org/parcc/pdf/apprtcasc.pdf.
40. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (2012). PARCC Assessment Design. Retrieved on March 1, 2012 from http:// www.parcconline.org/parcc-assessment-design.
41. Popham, W.J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern-wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 9-13.
42. Quenemoen, R., Flowers, C., & Forte, E. (2013, April). Theory of action for the National Center and State Collaborative Alternate Assessments and its role in the overall assessment design. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education. San Francisco, CA.
43. Shepard, L. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19(1), 405-450.
44. Shepard, L. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 5-8,13.????
45. Stecher, B. (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. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
46. Stecher, B., & Mitchell, K.J. (1995). Portfolio driven reform: Vermont teachers' understanding of mathematical problem solving. CSE Technical Report 400. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
47. Stecher, B., Barron, S., Chun, T., & Ross, K. (2000, August). The effects of the Washington state education reform in schools and classrooms (CSE Tech. Rep. NO. 525). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
48. Stecher, B., Barron, S., Kaganoff, T., & Goodwin, J. (1998, June). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 482). Los Angeles: University of California: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
49. Stein, M.K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50-80.
50. Stone, C.A., & Lane, S. (2003). Consequences of a state accountability program: Examining relationships between school performance gains and teacher, student, and school variables. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 1-26.
51. U.S. Department of Education (2009). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary Retrieved on April 15, 2010 from http://www.ed.gov/ programs/racetothetop/resources.html.
52. Weiss, C.H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501-524.
53. Wolf, S.A., & McIver, M. (1999). When process becomes policy: The paradox of Kentucky state reform for exemplary teachers of writing. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 401-406.