Some misconceptions about large-scale educational assessments

Defending Standardized Testing

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 91-110

  Goodman, Dean ^a   Hambleton, Ronald K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84917122175     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410612595     Document Type: Chapter

References (35)

1. Anderson, B. (1982). Test use today in elementary schools and secondary schools. In A. K. Wigdor & W. R. Garner (Eds.), Ability testing: Uses, consequences, and controversies (pp. 232-285). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2. Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C, & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 21-29.
3. Cizek, G. (Ed.). (2001). Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Cook, L. L., & Eignor, D. R. (1991). IRT equating methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(3), 37-45.
5. Education Week. (1997). Quality counts: A report card on the condition of public education. Retrieved September, 17, 2003, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/ qc97/indicators/tables/sta-tl.htm
6. Education Week. (2001). Quality counts 2001: Testing time. Retrieved October 19,2003, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc01/artides/qc01chart.cfm?slug=17test-c2.h20
7. Education Week. (2003a). Quality counts: If I can't learn from you. Retrieved September, 17, 2003, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc03/templates/article.cfm?slug=17sos.h22
8. Education Week. (2003b). Quality counts: If I can't learn from you. Retrieved October, 10, 2003, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc03/reports/ standacct-tl.cfm
9. Forte Fast, E., & the Accountability Systems and Reporting State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards. (2002). A guide to effective accountability reporting. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
10. Goodman, D. P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2004). Student test score reports and interpretive guides: Review of current practices and suggestions for future research. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(2), 145-220.
11. Hambleton, R. K. (2002). How can we make NAEP and state test score reporting scales and reports more understandable? In R. W. Lissitz & W. D. Schafer (Eds.), Assessment in educational reform (pp. 192-205). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Hambleton, R. K., & Slater, S. (1997). Are NAEP executive summary reports understandable to policy makers and educators? (CSE Technical Report 430). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Teaching.
13. Hoxby, C. M. (2002). The cost of accountability. In W. M. Evers & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School accountability (pp. 47-73). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
14. Impara, J. C., Divine, K. P., Bruce, F. A., Liverman, M. R., & Gay, A. (1991). Does interpretive test score information help teachers? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(4), 16-18.
15. Kirsch, L, Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in America. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
16. Kolen, M. J. (1988). Traditional equating methodology. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7(4), 29-36.
17. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (1995). Test equating: Methods and practices. New York: Springer-Verlag.
18. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2003). Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System: 2002 MCAS Technical Report. Maiden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.
19. Massachusetts Insight Education and Research Institute. (2003). Seizing the day: Massachusetts' at-risk high school students speak out on their experiences at the front lines of education reform. Boston: Author.
20. National Commission on Testing and Public Policy. (1990). From gatekeeper to gateway: Transforming testing in America. Chestnut Hill, MA: Author.
21. National Research Council. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: Aguidefor states and school districts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. New York State Department of Education. (2003). New York State Testing Program English Language Arts Grade 8 Technical Report 2002. New York: New York State Department of Education.
23. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1111,115 Stat. 1449-1452 (2002).
24. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2003). North Carolina testing program: The multiple-choice test development process. Retrieved October, 20, 2003, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/policies/mcTestDevelopment/
25. O'Neil, T., Sireci, S. G., & Huff, K. (in press). Evaluating the consistency of test content across two successive administrations of a state-mandated science assessment. Educational Assessment.
26. Phelps, R. P. (1997). The extent and character of system-wide student testing in the United States. Educational Assessment, 4(2), 89-121.
27. Phelps, R. P. (2000, Winter). Estimating the cost of standardized student testing in the United States. Journal of Education Finance, 24, 343-380.
28. Rebarber, T, & McFarland, T. W. (2002, February). Estimated cost of the testing requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act. Paper presented at the Education Leaders Council Test Summit.
29. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
30. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1992). Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions (OTA-SET-519). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
31. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Student testing: Current extent and expenditures, with cost estimates for a national examination (GAO/PEMD-93-8). Washington, DC: Author.
32. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Characteristics of tests will influence expenses- Information sharing may help states realize efficiencies (GAO-03-389). Washington, DC. Author.
33. Wainer, H. (1997). Visual revelations: Graphical tales of fate and deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. New York: Copernicus Books.
34. Wainer, H., Hambleton, R. K., & Meara, K. (1999). Alternative displays for communicating NAEP results: A redesign and validity study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(4), 301-335.
35. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education.