NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ907194
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2010
Pages: 8
Abstractor: ERIC
Reference Count: 6
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-1536-6367
Conceptualizing Comparability
Newton, Paul E.
Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, v8 n4 p172-179 2010
This article presents the author's rejoinder to thinking about linking from issue 8(1). Particularly within the more embracing linking frameworks, e.g., Holland & Dorans (2006) and Holland (2007), there appears to be a major disjunction between (1) classification discourse: the supposed basis for classification, that is, the underlying theory of comparability; and (2) classification practice: the framework contents. The classification discourse is characterized by a continuum-deficit rhetoric, in which equating is the paradigm for understanding linking, and linking relationships are characterized in terms of how far they depart from the pinnacle of linking: equating. The linking relationship continuum runs from equating, to approximate equating (including grades thereof), to not-even-approximate-equating and, therefore, not linking. The classification discourse, therefore, has no conceptual space for linking relationships that fail even to approximate equating. Classification practice, on the other hand, tends to be more embracing, accommodating techniques that can be applied in contexts not remotely like equating, for instance, battery and anchor scaling, when standards are linked across tests of radically different domains. How, then, are we to understand linking relationships that clearly do not approximate equating? There are two possibilities: Either we broaden our conceptual framework or we banish extreme forms of linking.
Psychology Press. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: Australia; United Kingdom (England); United Kingdom (Wales); United States
Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys: Advanced Placement Examinations (CEEB); SAT (College Admission Test)