Using multiple measures to address perverse incentives and score inflation

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 18-26

  Koretz, Daniel ^a  

^a HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Incentives; Multiple measures; Score inflation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84999375269     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00124.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. 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.
2. Feuer, M. J., Holland, P. W., Green, B. F., Bertenthal, M. W., &Hemphill, F. C. (1999) Uncommon measures: Equivalence and linkage among educational tests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Harrison, S. (2003, January 20). Florida set to tighten reigns on promoting third-graders. The Miami Herald. (Retrieved February 4, 2003, from http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/education/4986683).
4. Heubert, J. P., &Hauser, R. M., (Eds.) (1999) High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Hoover, H. D., Hieronymus, A. N., Frisbie, D. A., Dunbar, S. B., Oberley, K. R., Cantor, N. K., Bray, G. B., Lewis, J. C., &Qualls-Payne, A. L. (1994) Iowa Tests of Basic Skills interpretative guide for school administrators, levels 5–14. Chicago: Riverside.
6. Jaeger, R. M. (1989) Certification of student competence. In R. L. Linn, (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: American Council on Education/MacMillan.
7. Keller, B. (2001, March 28.) Ga. OKs social-promotion ban as Texas revisits its own. Education Week. (Retrieved February 4, 2003, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=28social.h20).
8. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., &Stecher, B. M. (2000) What do test scores in Texas tell us? Santa Monica, CA: RAND (http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP202/).
9. Klein, S. P., &Orlando, M. (2000) CUNY's testing program: Characteristics, results, and implications for policy and research. MR-1249-CAE. Santa Monica, CA RAND.
10. Koretz, D. (1998) Large-scale portfolio assessments in the US: Evidence pertaining to the quality of measurement. In D. Koretz, A. Wolf, &P. Broadfoot, (Eds.), Records of achievement. Special issue of Assessment In Education, 5(3), 309–334.
11. Koretz, D. (2001, April 13.) Examples of standards for accountability programs. In E. Baker (Chair), Holding accountability systems accountable: Research-based standards. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
12. Koretz, D. (2002a, September 11.) Believe me, it is not cheating, but some strange method. Invited presentation at the annual meeting of the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Los Angeles.
13. Koretz, D. (2002b.) Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators' productivity. In E. Hanushek, J. Heckman, &D. Neal, (Eds.), Designing incentives to promote human capital. Special issue of The Journal of Human Resources, 38(4), 752–777.
14. Koretz, D., &Barron, S. I. (1998) The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). MR-1014-EDU. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
15. Koretz, D., Barron, S., Mitchell, K., &Stecher, B. (1996) The perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (MR-792-PCT/FF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
16. Koretz, D., Linn, R. L., Dunbar, S. B., &Shepard, L. A. (1991, April) The effects of high-stakes testing: Preliminary evidence about generalization across tests, In R. L. Linn (Chair), The effects of high stakes testing. Symposium presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago.
17. Koretz, D., McCaffrey, D., &Hamilton, L. (2001) Toward a framework for validating gains under high-stakes conditions (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 551). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
18. Koretz, D., Mitchell, K., Barron, S., &Keith, S. (1996) The perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 409). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
19. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., &McCaffrey, D. (1994) The Vermont Portfolio Assessment Program: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(3), 5–16.
20. Lindquist, E. (1951) Preliminary considerations in objective test construction. In E. F. Linquist, (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
21. Maine Comprehensive Assessment Advisory Committee. (2000, June). Measured measures: Technical considerations for developing a local assessment system. Augusta, CA: Author.
22. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., Louis, T. A., Hamilton, L., &Kirby, S. (in press). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
23. National Assessment Governing Board. (2002, March 1). Using the National Assessment of Educational Progress to confirm state test results. Washington, DC: Author.
24. Neal, D. (2002) How would vouchers change the market for education Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 25–44.
25. Nebraska Department of Education. (2002, June) STARS: School-based Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System: A summary. Author.
26. Popham, W. J., Cruse, K. L., Rankin, S. C., Sandifer, P. D., &Williams, P. L. (1985) Measurement-driven instruction: It's on the road. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(9): 628–634.
27. Schafer, W. D. (2000) GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency: Observations for states. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(4), 411–418.
28. Shepard, L. A. (1988, April) The harm of measurement-driven instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
29. Stecher, B. M. (1998) The local benefits and burdens of large-scale portfolio assessment. In D. Koretz, A. Wolf, &P. Broadfoot, (Eds.), Records of Achievement. Special issue of Assessment in Education, 5(3), 335–351.
30. Stecher, B. M. (2002) Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In L. S., Hamilton, B. M., Stecher, &S. P. Klein, (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
31. Stecher, B. M., &Barron, S. I. (1999) Quadrennial milepost accountability testing in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 505). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
32. Wainer, H., &Thissen, D. (1996) How is reliability related to the quality of test scores? What is the effect of local dependence on reliability Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(1), 22–29.