Standards-Based Score Interpretation: Establishing Valid Grounds for Valid Inferences. Research Report.

The construct validity of content standards is addressed in terms of their representative coverage of a construct domain and their alignment with the students' cognitive level of developing expertise in the subject matter. The construct validity of performance standards is addressed in terms of the extent to which they reflect increasing levels of construct complexity as opposed to construct-irrelevant difficulty. Also critical is the extent to which performance standards characterize the knowledge and skills operative at each level both to accredit specific accomplishment and to serve as goals for further learning. All of this depends on construct-valid assessment attuned to the content standards and the development of dependable scoring rubrics and measurement scales for representing the performance standards.

[1]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Lee J. Cronbach,et al.  Construct validation after thirty years. , 1989 .

[3]  S. Messick.  Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons' Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning. Research Report RR-94-45. , 1994 .

[4]  S. Messick.  The Interplay of Evidence and Consequences in the Validation of Performance Assessments , 1994 .

[5]  S. Whitely.  Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. , 1983 .

[6]  S. Messick.  Progress toward Standards as Standards for Progress: A Potential Role for NAEP. , 1985 .

[7]  S. Messick.  Test validity and the ethics of assessment. , 1980 .

[8]  Donald E. Powers,et al.  Logical Consistency of the Angoff Method of Standard Setting. , 1993 .

[9]  Lee S. Shulman,et al.  Reconstruction of Educational Research , 1966 .

[10]  Isaac I. Bejar,et al.  Subject Matter Experts' Assessment of Item Statistics , 1981 .

[11]  van der Linden,et al.  A Conceptual Analysis of Standard Setting in Large-Scale Assessments. Research Report 94-3. , 1994 .

[12]  Roger T. Lennon,et al.  Assumptions Underlying the Use of Content Validity , 1956 .

[13]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[14]  On the Use of IRT Models With Judgmental Standard Setting Procedures , 1987 .

[15]  G. Wiggins.  Assessment: Authenticity, Context, and Validity. , 1993 .

[16]  S. Messick.  PROGRESS TOWARD STANDARDS AS STANDARDS FOR PROGRESS: A POTENTIAL ROLE FOR THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS , 1985 .

[17]  Samuel Messick.  National Assessment of Educational Progress Reconsidered: A New Design for a New Era. , 1983 .

[18]  Joan Boykoff Baron,et al.  Strategies for the Development of Effective Performance Exercises , 1991 .

[19]  J. Loevinger.  Objective Tests as Instruments of Psychological Theory , 1957 .

[20]  Lee J. Cronbach,et al.  Psychological tests and personnel decisions , 1958 .

[21]  S. Embretson.  CONSTRUCT VALIDITY: CONSTRUCT REPRESENTATION VERSUS NOMOTHETIC SPAN , 1983 .

[22]  G. A. Ferguson,et al.  On transfer and the abilities of man. , 1956, Canadian journal of psychology.

[23]  Michael T. Kane,et al.  An argument-based approach to validity. , 1992 .