Psychometric Principles in Student Assessment

Adams, R., Wilson, M.R., & Wang, W.-C. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multino mial logit model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Almond, R.G., & Mislevy, R.J. (1999). Graphical models and computerized adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Anderson, J.R., Boyle, C.F., & Corbett, A.T. (1990). Cognitive modeling and intelligent tutoring. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 7–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bennett, R.E. (2001). How the internet will help large-scale assessment reinvent itself. Education Policy Analysis, 9(5). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n5.htlm.

Bradlow, E.T., Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (1999). A Bayesian random effects model for testlets. Psychometrika, 64, 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brennan, R.L. (1983). The elements of generalizability theory. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.Google Scholar

Brennan, R.L. (2001). An essay on the history and future of reliability from the perspective of replications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, W. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 296–322.Google Scholar

Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar

Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, J.A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 17, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cronbach, L.J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy (pp. 147–171). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dayton, CM. (1999). Latent class scaling analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Dibello, L.V., Stout, W.F., & Roussos, L.A. (1995). Unified cognitive/psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood based classification techniques. In P. Nichols, S. Chipman, & R. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 361–389). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Embretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embretson, S.E. (1998). A cognitive design systems approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 380–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ercikan, K. (1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ercikan, K., & Julian, M. (2002). Classification accuracy of assigning student performance to proficiency levels: Guidelines for assessment design. Applied Measurement in Education. 15, 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Falmagne, J.-C., & Doignon, J.-P. (1988). A class of stochastic procedures for the assessment of knowledge. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, G.H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., & Rubin, D.B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar

Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C Berliner, & R.C Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–146). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Gulliksen, H. (1950/1987). Theory of mental tests. New York: John Wiley/Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haertel, E.H. (1989). Using restricted latent class models to map the skill structure of achievement test items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haertel, E.H., & Wiley, D.E. (1993). Representations of ability structures: Implications for testing. In N. Frederiksen, R.J. Mislevy, & I.I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hambleton, R.K. (1989). Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 147–200). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.Google Scholar

Hambleton, R.K., & Slater, S.C. (1997). Reliability of credentialing examinations and the impact of scoring models and standard-setting policies. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holland, P.W., & Thayer, D.T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenzsel procedures. In H. Wainer, & H.I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129–145). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Holland, P.W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.Google Scholar

Kadane, J.B., & Schum, D.A. (1996). A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Kane, M.T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelley, T.L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. New York: World Book.Google Scholar

Kuder, G.F., & Richardson, M.W. (1937). The theory of estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lane, W., Wang, N., & Magone, M. (1996). Gender-related differential item functioning on a middle-school mathematics performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(4), 21–27, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1950). The logical and mathematical foundation of latent structure analysis. In S.A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E.A. Suchman, P.R. Lazarsfeld, S.A. Star, & J.A Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and prediction (pp. 362–412). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Levine, M., & Drasgow, F. (1982). Appropriateness measurement: Review, critique, and validating studies. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 35, 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linacre, J.M. (1989). Many faceted Rasch measurement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Lord, R.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Martin, J.D., & VanLehn, K. (1995). A Bayesian approach to cognitive assessment. In P. Nichols, S. Chipman, & R. Brennan (Eds.), Cognitively diagnostic assessment (pp. 141–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.Google Scholar

Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Education Researcher, 32, 13–23.Google Scholar

Messick, S., Beaton, A.E., & Lord, F.M. (1983). National Assessment of Educational Progress reconsidered: A new design for a new era. NAEP Report 83-1. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment for Educational Progress.Google Scholar

Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L.S., & Almond, R.G. (in press). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. In S. Irvine, & P. Kyllonen (Eds.), Generating items for cognitive tests: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L.S., Almond, R.G., Haertel, G., & Penuel, W. (in press). Leverage points for improving educational assessment. In B. Means, & G. Haertel (Eds.), Evaluating the effects of technology in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L.S., Breyer, F.J., Almond, R.G., & Johnson, L. (1999). A cognitive task analysis, with implications for designing a simulation-based assessment system. Computers and Human Behavior, 15, 335–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L.S., Breyer, F.J., Almond, R.G., & Johnson, L. (in press). Making sense of data from complex assessment. Applied Measurement in Education.Google Scholar

Myford, C.M., & Mislevy, R.J. (1995). Monitoring and improving a portfolio assessment system (Center for Performance Assessment Research Report). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

National Research Council (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Pellegrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

O’Neil, K.A., & McPeek, W.M. (1993). Item and test characteristics that are associated with Differential Item Functioning. In P.W. Holland, & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 255–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Patz, R.J., & Junker, B.W. (1999). Applications and extensions of MCMC in IRT: Multiple item types, missing data, and rated responses. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 342–366.Google Scholar

Petersen, N.S., Kolen, M.J., & Hoover, H.D. (1989). Scaling, norming, and equating. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 221–262). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.Google Scholar

Pirolli. P., & Wilson, M. (1998). A theory of the measurement of knowledge content, access, and learning. Psychological Review, 105, 58–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research/Chicago: University of Chicago Press (reprint).Google Scholar

Reckase, M. (1985). The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rogosa, D.R., & Ghandour, G.A. (1991). Statistical models for behavioral observations (with discussion). Journal of Educational Statistics, 16, 157–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph No. 17, 34, (No. 4, Part 2).Google Scholar

Samejima, F. (1973). Homogeneous case of the continuous response level. Psychometrika, 38, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schum, D.A. (1987). Evidence and inference for the intelligence analyst. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Schum, D.A. (1994). The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

SEPUP (1995). Issues, evidence, and you: Teacher’s guide. Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science.Google Scholar

Shavelson, R.J., & Webb, N.W (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spearman, C. (1910). Correlation calculated with faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271–295.Google Scholar

Spiegelhalter, D.J., Thomas, A., Best, N.G., & Gilks, W.R. (1995). BUGS: Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling, Version 0.50. Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit.Google Scholar

Tatsuoka, K.K. (1990). Toward an integration of item response theory and cognitive error diagnosis. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M.G. Shafto, (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 453–488). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (1986). A taxonomy of item response models. Psychometrika, 51, 567–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar

Traub, R.E., & Rowley, G.L. (1980). Reliability of test scores and decisions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Linden, W.J. (1998). Optimal test assembly. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Linden, W.J., & Hambleton, R.K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Wainer, H., Dorans, N.J., Flaugher, R., Green, B.F., Mislevy, R.J., Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wainer, H., & Keily, G.L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiley, D.E. (1991). Test validity and invalidity reconsidered. In R.E. Snow, & D.E. Wiley (Eds.), Improving inquiry in social science (pp. 75–107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Willingham, W.W., & Cole, N.S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wilson, M., & Sloane, K. (2000). From principles to practice: An embedded assessment system. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of Educational Research, Vol. 17 (pp. 31–74). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Wright, B.D., & Masters, G.N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: MESA Press.Google Scholar

Yen, W.M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar