scholarly journals Should Achievement Tests be Used to Judge School Quality?

2000 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott C. Bauer
Keyword(s):  
Language Arts ◽  
School Quality ◽  
Instructional Quality ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Local Study ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Standardized Achievement Tests

This study provides empirical evidence to answer the question whether student scores on standardized achievement tests represent reasonable measures of instructional quality. Using a research protocol designed by Popham and the local study directors, individual test items from a nationally-marketed standardized achievement test were rated by educators and parents to determine the degree to which raters felt that the items reflect important content that is actually taught in schools, and the degree to which raters felt that students' answers to the questions would be likely to be unduly influenced by confounded causality. Three research questions are addressed: What percentage of test items are considered suspect by raters as indicators of school instructional quality? Do educators and parents of school-age children differ in their ratings of the appropriateness of test items? Do educators and parents feel that standardized achievement test scores should be used as an indicator of school instructional quality? Descriptive statistics show that on average, raters felt that the content reflected in test questions measured material that is important for students to know. However, for reading and language arts questions, between about 20% to 40% of the items were viewed as suspect in terms of the other criteria.

Standardized Achievement Tests: How Useful for Special Education?

1978 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 448-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Jenkins ◽  
Darlene Pany
Keyword(s):  
Reading Achievement ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Second Grade ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Exceptional Children ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
Standardized Achievement Tests

The extent and direction of curriculum bias in standardized reading achievement tests are examined. Bias was estimated by comparing the relative overlap in the contents of four separate reading achievement tests with the contents of five commercial reading series at first and second grade levels. Overlap between each achievement test and each reading series is reported in terms of achievement test grade equivalent scores that would be expected given mastery of the words that appear both as content in a reading series and as achievement test items. Results indicate clear discrepancies between the grade equivalent scores obtained, both between tests for a single curriculum and on a single test for different reading curricula. The implications of the apparent curriculum bias of achievement tests are discussed as they relate to evaluation of teachers, children, and curricula; to reading placement; and to the identification and classification of exceptional children.

Learning Disabled Students' Spontaneous Use of Test-Taking Skills on Reading Achievement Tests

1985 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Scruggs ◽  
Karla Bennion ◽  
Steven Lifson
Keyword(s):  
Reading Achievement ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Strategy Use ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Test Taking ◽  
Level Of Confidence ◽  
Resource Rooms

The present investigation was undertaken to identify the type of strategies learning disabled (LD) students employ on standardized, group-administered achievement test items. Of particular interest was level of strategy effectiveness and possible differences in strategy use between LD and nondisabled students. Students attending resource rooms and regular third-grade classes were administered items from reading achievement tests and interviewed concerning the strategies they had employed in answering the questions and their level of confidence in each answer. Results indicated that (a) LD students were less likely to report use of appropriate strategies on inferential questions, (b) LD students were less likely to attend carefully to specific format demands, and (c) LD students reported inappropriately high levels of confidence.

scholarly journals Curriculum Biases in Reading Achievement Tests

1978 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Jenkins ◽  
Darlene Pany
Keyword(s):  
Reading Achievement ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Curriculum Evaluation ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Second Grade ◽  
Single Test ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
Reading Curricula

The extent and direction of curriculum bias in standardized reading achievement tests are examined. Bias is estimated by comparing the relative overlap in the contents of five separate reading achievement tests with the content of seven commercial reading series at first and second grade levels. Overlap between each achievement test and each reading series is reported in terms of achievement test grade equivalent scores that would be expected given mastery of the words which appear both as content in a reading series and as achievement test items. Results indicate clear discrepancies between the grade equivalent scores obtained both between tests for a single curriculum and on a single test for different reading curricula. The implications of the apparent curriculum bias of achievement tests are discussed as they relate to teacher, child, and curriculum evaluation, to reading replacement, and to applied educational research.

The Use and Validity of Standardized Achievement Tests for Evaluating New Curricular Interventions in Mathematics and Science

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Sussman ◽  
Mark R. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Science Education ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Summative Evaluation ◽  
Validity Evidence ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Standardized Achievement Tests ◽  
Curricular Interventions ◽  
Mathematics And Science

We investigated the use and validity of standardized achievement tests for summative evaluation of 78 educational intervention projects funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) math and science education program. Investigators from 46 projects evaluated curricular interventions with standardized achievement tests as outcome measures. Twenty-five of the projects had potential validity problems related to a misalignment between the achievement test and the intervention. A closer analysis of 11 of those projects flagged as high risk for validity problems showed that only 6 projects attended to the validity of the test, and only 1 project provided adequate validity evidence. We conclude that there is widespread inappropriate use of achievement tests that threatens the validity of educational evaluations. To better support innovation, evaluators must dedicate more attention to the validity of the outcome measures they use.

scholarly journals Psychometric Analysis of Economics Achievement Test Using Item Response Theory

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Roseline Ifeoma Ezechukwu ◽  
Basil Chinecherem, E. Oguguo ◽  
Catherine U. Ene ◽  
Clifford O. Ugorji
Keyword(s):  
Item Response Theory ◽  
Item Response ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Choice Test ◽  
Response Theory ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Two Parameter

This study determined the psychometric properties of the Economics Achievement Test (EAT) using Item Response Theory (IRT). Two popular IRT models namely, one-parameter logistics (1PL) and two-parameter logistics (2PL) models were utilized. The researcher adopted instrumentation research design. Four research questions and two hypotheses were formulated to guide the study. The population size is five thousand, three hundred and sixty-two (5,362) from thirty-seven (37) schools. The sample for the study was 1,180 senior secondary school students (SSS3) drawn using multi-stage sampling procedure. The 1,180 students were stratified according to gender which resulted to 885 females and 295 males. The instrument for the study consisted of 50 multiple-choice test items on the economics achievement test, developed by the researchers. Reliability and validity for each item and for the whole test were established according to the one-parameter and two-parameter logistic models. Research question one was answered using 1PLM, while research questions two and three were answered using 2PLM IRT model. Hypothesis one was tested using t-test analysis of difference between the difficulty parameters estimated using 1PLM and 2PLM while hypothesis two was tested using Chi-square. The finding of the study revealed significant difference between the item difficulties estimated using 1PLM and 2PLM. Also the observed scores of the testees on the test items fit the 1PL 2PL models.

scholarly journals Why Teachers Select Specific Literacy Assignments and Students' Reactions to Them

1993 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel D. Miller ◽  
Treana Adkins ◽  
Mary Louise Hooper
Keyword(s):  
School Improvement ◽  
Elementary Teachers ◽  
Language Arts ◽  
Student Learning ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Fourth Grade ◽  
Achievement Test ◽  
Extrinsic Rewards ◽  
Language Arts Instruction ◽  
Student Interviews

This study evaluated the literacy assignments elementary teachers use in their reading and language arts instruction, the reasons why they use a particular assignment, and how students react to different assignments. The project was initiated by teachers (three third-grade and three fourth-grade) and their principal because they believed students failed to see how various reading and language arts skills were related to one another, had difficulties applying such skills whenever they had to read or write lengthy prose, and did not want to complete assignments unless they received extrinsic rewards. Furthermore, teachers said teaching was no longer as satisfying as it had been in previous years. To evaluate their concerns we examined whether their literacy assignments included those characteristics that foster student learning and motivation and we interviewed the teachers and principal about why they believed teaching was no longer as satisfying as it had once been. Interviews indicated that teachers and the principal believed accountability pressures to increase standardized achievement test scores strongly influenced their school's reading and language arts instruction. Teachers said they attempted to raise students' scores by emphasizing the standardized achievement test skills. To maximize skill coverage, teachers said they avoided literacy assignments that required the reading of lengthy texts, sophisticated writing, and lengthy discussions. Evaluations of their literacy assignments confirmed their statements; students seldom completed classwork which required sophisticated writing or reading. Student interviews showed that they were bored with these assignments or did them because they expected extrinsic rewards. Whenever they completed a more complex literacy assignment (i.e., those that required the writing of single or multiple sentences or paragraphs), students said they were challenged and enjoyed learning for learning's sake. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for school improvement studies and students' learning and motivation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document