Your search found 6359 results.

Descriptors:
Validity; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Inferences; Generalization; Test Results; Decision Making; Beliefs; Ethics; Evidence

Abstract:
This response to the comments contains three main sections, each addressing a subset of the comments. In the first section, I will respond to the comments by Brennan, Haertel, and Moss. All of these comments suggest ways in which my presentation could be extended or improved; I generally agree with their suggestions, so my response to their comments is brief. In the second section, I will respond to suggestions by Newton and Sireci that my framework be simplified by employing only one kind of argument, a validity argument, and dropping the interpretation/use argument (IUA); I am sympathetic to their desire for greater simplicity, but I see considerable value in keeping the IUA as a framework for the validation effort and will argue for keeping both the IUA and the validity argument. In the third section, I will respond to Borsboom and Markus, who raise a fundamental objection to my approach to validation, suggesting that I give too much attention to justification and too little to truth as a criterion for validity; I don't accept their proposed conception of validity, and I will indicate why. (Contains 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Test Interpretation; Validity; Scores; Test Use; Test Results; Construct Validity; Content Validity; Generalization; Performance Tests; Item Response Theory; Sampling; Inferences; Reliability; Evidence; Theories

Abstract:
To validate an interpretation or use of test scores is to evaluate the plausibility of the claims based on the scores. An argument-based approach to validation suggests that the claims based on the test scores be outlined as an argument that specifies the inferences and supporting assumptions needed to get from test responses to score-based interpretations and uses. Validation then can be thought of as an evaluation of the coherence and completeness of this interpretation/use argument and of the plausibility of its inferences and assumptions. In outlining the argument-based approach to validation, this paper makes eight general points. First, it is the proposed score interpretations and uses that are validated and not the test or the test scores. Second, the validity of a proposed interpretation or use depends on how well the evidence supports the claims being made. Third, more-ambitious claims require more support than less-ambitious claims. Fourth, more-ambitious claims (e.g., construct interpretations) tend to be more useful than less-ambitious claims, but they are also harder to validate. Fifth, interpretations and uses can change over time in response to new needs and new understandings leading to changes in the evidence needed for validation. Sixth, the evaluation of score uses requires an evaluation of the consequences of the proposed uses; negative consequences can render a score use unacceptable. Seventh, the rejection of a score use does not necessarily invalidate a prior, underlying score interpretation. Eighth, the validation of the score interpretation on which a score use is based does not validate the score use. (Contains 1 figure and 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Testing; Test Results; Test Use; Theories; Social Sciences

Abstract:
In validating uses of testing, it is helpful to distinguish those that rely directly on the information provided by scores or score distributions ("direct" uses and consequences) versus those that instead capitalize on the motivational effects of testing, or use testing and test reporting to shape public opinion ("indirect" uses and consequences). Some uses and consequences, both direct and indirect, are intended; others are unintended. Unintended consequences pose greater challenges in test validation because they must be identified before they can be investigated. Validation of uses and consequences can employ theories and methods from various social science disciplines. Educational measurement is most closely allied with psychology and statistics, but sociologists, anthropologists, economists, linguists, and others also could help in theorizing and investigating the consequences of test use, especially indirect and unintended consequences. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Inferences; Scoring; Generalization; Test Results

Abstract:
Kane's paper "Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores" is the most complete and clearest discussion yet available of the argument-based approach to validation. At its most basic level, validation as formulated by Kane is fundamentally a simply-stated two-step enterprise: (1) specify the claims inherent in a particular interpretation and/or use of test scores (IUA); and (2) provide an evaluation of the claims (validity argument). Kane discusses four types of inferences that provide a scaffolding for addressing these two arguments: scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and decision rules. Decision rules, in particular, are closely related to consequences, which loom large in the argument-based approach to validation. The present commentary on Kane's paper attempts to simplify some of his discussions, while expanding others. The author suggests that Kane's argument-based approach to validation offers by far the best current basis for optimism about improvements in validation. (Contains 7 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Standardized Tests; Test Results; Elementary School Teachers; Self Efficacy; Information Utilization; Teacher Characteristics; Knowledge Level; Evaluation Methods; Measurement Techniques; Measures (Individuals); Academic Achievement

Abstract:
Educational standardized testing impacts millions of children and educational professionals each year. In the current accountability climate, an effective educational system depends on professionals who are literate in assessment and can take the appropriate actions in response to test results. Measurement researchers should begin to focus more attention on how teachers use assessment results, what skills teachers possess, and what teachers believe they can do in working with test results. This study examined elementary teacher knowledge and self-efficacy in measurement concepts through a random sample of teachers in the state of Washington. Teachers had greater success with skills related to basic measurement concepts compared to using test scores for informed decisions. No relationship was found between years of teaching and measurement knowledge or self-efficacy. However, teachers showing interest in resources for communicating test results to parents had lower self-efficacy compared to teachers not interested in resources. (Contains 2 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Familiarity; Standardized Tests; Autism; Examiners; Pervasive Developmental Disorders; Elementary School Students; Preschool Children; Cognitive Ability; Test Bias; Test Results; Test Validity; Kindergarten; Observation

Abstract:
The authors examined the difference in standardized test performance when familiar versus unfamiliar examiners tested 26 preschool and elementary-aged children with autism. The children were matched by age, severity, and developmental level and then randomly placed into familiar and unfamiliar examiner groups. Familiarity with the examiner was established before test administration for children in the treatment group. Both groups were administered 2 subscales of the Psychoeducational Profile-Revised. There was a statistically significant difference in favor of the children tested by the familiar examiners on the cognitive verbal subscale (d = 0.43) and on the cognitive performance subscale (d = 0.47), indicating that examiner familiarity had positive effects on the test performance of children with autism. Given these results, it appears that professionals who are responsible for administering standardized tests to children with autism should make pretest contact with these children to reduce test procedure bias. (Contains 3 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Educational Environment; Performance Tests; Biology; Foreign Countries; Learning Experience; Interviews; Focus Groups; Test Results; Case Studies; Student Attitudes; Science Education; Pretests Posttests; Surveys

Abstract:
Does an online, multimedia case study influence students' performance, motivation, and perceptions of science in collegiate level biology classes, and if so, how? One hundred and eight students in 5 classes from 4 campuses in the United States and Puerto Rico participated in data collection (performance tests, surveys and focus group interviews). Pre- and post-test results increased after students participated in the learning environment (F(1, 80) = 17.256, p less than or equal to 0.01, eta[superscript 2] = 0.177). Student confidence in their knowledge also increased. During focus group interviews students reported that the project was a good learning experience (95%), would help with future classes or careers (87%), and stimulated student curiosity by demonstrating the application of theoretical knowledge in real-world situations (64%). The learning environment motivated students by making material relevant, which resulted in better performance. This pedagogical tool is not instructor dependent, and is adaptable. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Economics Education; High School Seniors; Grade 12; Student Evaluation; Basic Business Education; Money Management; Free Enterprise System; National Norms; International Trade; Economic Factors; Economic Impact; Scores; National Competency Tests; Test Results; Private Schools; Public Schools; Economics; Achievement Gap; Achievement Gains; Ethnic Groups; African American Students; Hispanic American Students; Pacific Americans; Alaska Natives; Asian American Students; American Indians; White Students

Abstract:
Economic literacy is vital for functioning effectively in today's society. Consumers need to manage their finances, investors need to plan for their future, and voters need to choose among competing economic plans. As students move on to college or enter the workforce, their understanding of the economy will help them become financially responsible citizens. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) monitors students' attainment of these skills and knowledge with its twelfth-grade economics assessment. First administered in 2006, the NAEP economics assessment measures twelfth-graders' understanding of a wide range of topics in three main content areas: market economy, national economy, and international economy. This report provides results of the economics assessment in 2012 based on a nationally representative sample of nearly 11,000 twelfth-graders. Results from 2012 are compared with those from 2006 to investigate whether the nation's high school seniors are becoming increasingly literate in economics. Percentage of students and average scores in NAEP economics at grade 12, by selected characteristics: 2006 and 2012 are appended. Technical notes are included. (Contains 17 figures and 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (3782K)

Descriptors:
Psychological Studies; Gender Differences; Researchers; Test Results; Effect Size; Statistical Significance; Computation; Generalization; Probability; Intervals; Data Analysis; Statistical Inference; Sampling

Abstract:
Researchers are strongly encouraged to accompany the results of statistical tests with appropriate estimates of effect size. For 2-group comparisons, a probability-based effect size estimator ("A") has many appealing properties (e.g., it is easy to understand, robust to violations of parametric assumptions, insensitive to outliers). We review generalizations of the "A" statistic to extend its use to applications with discrete data, with weighted data, with "k" greater than 2 groups, and with correlated samples. These generalizations are illustrated through reanalyses of data from published studies on sex differences in the acceptance of hypothetical offers of casual sex and in scores on a measure of economic enlightenment, on age differences in reported levels of Authentic Pride, and in differences between the numbers of promises made and kept in romantic relationships. Drawing from research on the construction of confidence intervals for the "A" statistic, we recommend a bootstrap method that can be used for each generalization of "A". We provide a suite of programs that should make it easy to use the A statistic and accompany it with a confidence interval in a wide variety of research contexts. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Control Groups; Experimental Groups; Grade 2; Test Results; Physics; Preservice Teachers; Pretests Posttests; Quantum Mechanics; Science Education; Science Instruction; Undergraduate Study; Science Teachers; Learning Activities; Elementary School Students; Elementary School Science

Abstract:
In the present study, the comprehension levels of special relativity theory in prospective teachers who take the Introduction to Modern Physics lesson in the faculty of education science teaching department and the effect of writing for learning on their achievement is researched. In the research, a control group pre-test post-test quasi-experimental research model was used. Research data were obtained by using open-ended questions prepared by the researcher. The lesson was conducted in the beginning by using the verbal-written explanation method. Then each student in the experimental group wrote a summary which clearly explains the special relativity theory for a high school student within the framework of the writing for learning activity. By contrast, the control group students solved the problems related to the subject in the course book. A total of 73 students (51 female and 22 male) studying at the second grade in the 2011-2012 academic year participated in the study. The research findings showed that the comprehension levels of special relativity theory in prospective teachers were low; the result obtained by the qualitative and quantitative comparison of the post-test results of the experimental and control groups and their achievement percentage in the exam were in favor of the experimental group. Furthermore, 87.2% of the students who wrote down their opinions about the activity of writing for learning understood the special relativity theory; and the activity of writing for learning was effective in learning the special relativity theory. (Contains 9 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (111K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library