Validating high-stakes testing programs

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 31-41

  Kane, Michael ^a  

^a National Conference of Bar Examiners   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908958006     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00083.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999) Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Brennan, R. (1992) Elements of generalizability theory (Revised ed.) Iowa City: American College Testing.
3. Brennan, R. (2001) Some problems, pitfalls, and paradoxes in educational measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 6–18.
4. Cizek, G. (2001) More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19–27.
5. Cronbach, L. (1971) Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike, (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
6. Cronbach, L. (1988) Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun, (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cronbach, L., &Gleser, G. C. (1965) Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
8. Cronbach, L., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., &Rajaratnam, N. (1972) The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
9. Crooks, T. (1988) The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.
10. Crooks, T., Kane, M., &Cohen, A. (1996) Threats to validity. Assessment in Education, 3, 265–285.
11. Ehrenfeld, J. (2001) The trouble with testing: One teacher's perspective. Education Week, October 24, p. 43.
12. Eisner, E. (2001) What does it mean to say that a school is doing well Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 367–372.
13. Feldt, L., &Brennan, R. (1989) Reliability. In R. L. Linn, (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 105–146). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
14. Fortier, J., Cook, H., &Burke, M. (2000) Wisconsin high-school graduation test: Educator's guide. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
15. Galley, M. (2001) State tests don't support good instruction, panel says. Education Week, October 31, p. 5.
16. Gehring, J. (2001) Mass. school policies praised as test scores rise. Education Week, October 24, pp. 26, 29.
17. Griffin, B., &Heidorn, M. (1996) An examination of the relationship between minimum competency test performance and dropping out of high school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(3), 243–252.
18. Haertel, E. (1999) Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, (4), 5–9.
19. Haney, W. (1991) We must take care: Fitting assessments to functions. In V. Perrone, (Ed.), Expanding student assessment. Arlington, VA: ASCD.
20. Heller, J. (1955) Catch 22 (S&S Classical Edition). New York: Simon and Schuster.
21. Heubert, J., &Hauser, M. (1999) High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. House, E. (1980) Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23. Jacob, B. (2001) Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99–121.
24. Jones, L. (2001) Assessing achievement versus high-stakes testing: A crucial contrast. Educational Assessment, 7, 21–28.
25. Kane, M. (2001) Current concerns invalidity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342.
26. Kane, M. (1992) An argument-based approach to validation. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535.
27. Lane, S., Parke, C., &Stone, C. (1998) A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24–28.
28. Linn, R. (1993) Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1–16.
29. Mehrens, W. (1998) Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(13), 1–29.
30. Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In R. L. Linn, (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
31. Morse, J. (2002) Test drive. Time, February 4, pp. 53–54.
32. Moss, P. A. (1998) The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 6–12.
33. National Clearinghouse (undated). What Is Standards for Success? Eugene, OR: Center for Applied Policy Studies.
34. Ohanian, S. (2001) News from the test resistance trail. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 363–366.
35. Olson, L. (2001a) Finding the right mix. Education Week, January 11, pp. 12–20.
36. Olson, L. (2001b.) Overboard on testing. Education Week, January 11, pp. 23–30.
37. Phillips, S. E. (2000) GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency: Psychometric evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 343–385.
38. Richard, A. (2001) More Va. Schools Hit Mark on exams used for ratings. Education Week, October 24, pp. 26, 30.
39. Shepard, L. A. (1993) Evaluating test validity. In L. Darling-Hammond, (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 19 (pp. 405–450). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
40. Stoskopf, A. (2001) Reviving Clio: Inspired history teaching and learning (without high-stakes testing). Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 468–473.
41. Thompson, S. (2001) The authentic standards movement and its evil twin. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 358–362.
42. Walton, D. (1989) Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Ward, C. (2000) GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency: Implications for state assessment programs. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 419–426.