using justifiable procedures in setting passing scores, history of past litigation related to testing, and the need for validity for licensure tests.
Comment: The materials available to applicants are limited but would be helpful in preparing applicants for taking this test. An applicant would benefit from reading the Tests at a Glance.
• Technical manual with relevant data: There is no single technical manual for any of the Praxis tests. Much of the information that would routinely be found in such a manual is spread out over many different publications. The frequency of developing new forms and multiple annual test administrations would make it very difficult to have a single comprehensive technical manual.
Comment: The absence of a technical manual is a problem, but the rationale for not having one is understandable. The availability of the information on most important topics is helpful, but it would seem appropriate for there to be some reasonable compromise to assist users in evaluating each test without being overwhelmed by having to sort through the massive amount of information that would be required for a comprehensive review. For example, a technical report that covered a specific period of time (e.g., one year) might be useful to illustrate the procedures used and the technical data for the various forms of the test for that period.
This test seems to be well constructed and has moderate-to-good psychometric qualities. The procedures reportedly used for test development, standard setting, and validation are all consistent with sound measurement practices. The fairness reviews and technical strategies used are also consistent with sound measurement practices. The costs to users (states) are essentially nil, and the costs to applicants/examinees seem to be in line with similar programs. Applicants are provided with some free information to assist them in preparing for the test.
No information was provided on equating alternate forms of the test. This is a problem as equating tests that combine both multiple-choice and constructed-response items may not be a straightforward process. It appears that the test has been getting easier as later forms are developed, suggesting that the equating process may have to deal with differences in test score distributions.