Skip to main content

Uncommon Measures Equivalence and Linkage Among Educational Tests (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

5 Conclusions
Pages 87-93

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 87...
... ? In this report we have attempted to answer this question by examining the fundamentals of tests anc3 the nature of linking; reviewing the literature on linking, including previous attempts to link different tests; surveying the landscape of tests anc3 testing programs in the United States; anc3 looking at the unique characteristics anc3 qualities of NAEP.
Read the entire page →
From page 88...
... When content differences are significant, scores from one test provide poor estimates of scores on another test: any calculated linkage between them would have little practical meaning anc3 would be misleading for many uses. Test Format Tests are becoming more varied in their formats.
Read the entire page →
From page 89...
... But the extent to which any of these factors affects linkage can be cieterminec3 only by a case~by' case evaluation of specific tests in a specific context. Developers of linkages should look carefully at the differences in content emphases, format, and intended uses of tests before deciding to link them.
Read the entire page →
From page 90...
... The research literature is rife with examples of linkages that looked good at first but failed to hold up over time. NAEP Achievement Levels Even if two or more tests satisfy the appropriate criteria and prove to be amenable to linkage, linking any or all of them to NAEP poses unique challenges.
Read the entire page →
From page 91...
... CONCLUSIONS sloes: Our findings, as summarized above, lead us to the following conclu' Comparing the full array of currently administered commercial and state achievement tests to one another, through the development of a single equivalency or linking scale, is not feasible. Reporting individual student scores from the full array of state and commercial achievement tests on the NAEP scale and transforming individual scores on these various tests and assessments into the NAEP achievement levels are not feasible.
Read the entire page →
From page 92...
... (The committee notes that it is theoretically possible to develop an expanclec3 version of NAEP that could be used in conducting linkage experiments, which would make it possible to establish a basis for report' ing achievement test scores in terms of the NAEP achievement levels. However, the few such efforts that have been macie thus far have yielciec3 limited anc3 mixed results.)
Read the entire page →
From page 93...
... that one way of reporting a students' performance in terms of NAEP achievement levels is to state that, among 100 students who performed at the same level as the student, call her Sally, 10 are likely to be in the below basic category, 60 are likely to be basic; 28 are likely to be proficient; anc] 2 are likely to be in the highest, or acivancec!
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • naep achievement
  • student scores
  • individual student
  • naep scale
  • achievement tests

  • educational tests
  • measurement error
  • test takers
  • national assessment
  • assessment information

  • unique challenges
  • individual scores
  • naep assessment
  • state tests
  • test scores

  • linked test
  • test specifications
  • linked tests
  • reporting individual
  • linking scale

  • unique characteristics
  • total set
  • basic test
  • content frameworks
  • classification differences

  • currently administered
  • report distributions
  • linking function
  • achievement test
  • testing students


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.