National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 8 Conclusions and Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

References

ACT, Inc. (1992). Design Document for Setting Achievement Levels on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Mathematics, Reading, and Writing: Final Version. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT, Inc. (1993a). Description of Mathematics Achievement Levels-Setting Process and Proposed Achievement Level Descriptions: Volume I. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT, Inc. (1993b). Description of Mathematics Achievement Levels-Setting Process and Proposed Achievement Level Descriptions: Volume II. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT, Inc. (1993c). Setting Achievement Levels on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Mathematics, Reading, and Writing: A Technical Report on Reliability and Validity. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT, Inc. (1993d). Setting Achievement Levels on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Reading: A Final Report: Volume I. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT, Inc. (1993e). Setting Achievement Levels on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Reading: A Final Report: Volume II. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT, Inc. (2010). The Alignment of the NAEP Grade 12 Mathematics Assessment and the Work-Keys Applied Mathematics Assessment. Iowa City, IA: Author.

ACT, Inc. (2013). College Readiness Standards: Reading. Iowa City, IA: Author. Available: http://www.act.org/standard/planact/reading/index.html [April 2016].

Adkins, D.A. (2014). Proficiency Illusions. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.

Alexander, L., and James, H.T. (1987). The Nation’s Report Card: Improving the Assessment of Student Achievement. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

Allen, J., and Sconing, J. (2005). Using ACT Assessment Scores to Set Benchmarks for College Readiness (ACT Research Series 2005-3). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

Allen, N.L., Kline, D.L., and Zelenak, C.A. (1996). The NAEP 1994 Technical Report. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Allen, N.L., Carlson, J.E., and Zelenak, C.A. (1999). The NAEP 1996 Technical Report. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications. Washington, DC: Author.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51 (2, Pt. 2).

Angoff, W.H. (1984). Scales, Norms, and Equivalent Scores. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Angoff, W.H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer and H. Braun (Eds.) Test Validity (pp. 19-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Applied Measurement in Education. (1998). Special Issue: Setting consensus goals for academic achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(1).

Bandeira de Mello, V. (2011), Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto the NAEP Scales: Variation and Change in State Standards for Reading and Mathematics, 2005–2009 (NCES 2011-458). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bandeira de Mello, V., Blankenship, C., and McLaughlin, D. (2009). Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007: Research and Development Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Bandeira de Mello, V., Bohrnstedt, G., Blankenship, C., and Sherman, D. (2015). Mapping State Proficiency Standards onto NAEP Scales: Results from the 2013 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Assessments (NCES 2015-046). National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Beaton, A.E. (1990). Epilogue. In A.E. Beaton, and R. Zwick (Eds.), The Effect of Changes in the National Assessment: Disentangling the NAEP 1985-1986 Reading Anomaly (Technical Report No. 17-TR-21, pp. 165-168). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Beaton, A.E., and Gonzalez, E.J. (1993). Comparing the NAEP Trial State Assessment Results with the IAEP International Results. Paper prepared for the Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment of National Academy of Education. In The Trial State Assessment: Prospects and Realities: Background Studies 1993. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

Beaton, A.E., Linn, R.L., and Bohrnstedt, G.W. (2012). Alternative Approaches to Setting Performance Standards for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Bejar, I.I. (2008). Standard setting: What is it? Why is it important? R&D Connections, 7, 1-6.

Berk, R.A. (1986). A consumer’s guide to setting performance standards on the criterion-referenced tests. Review of Educational Research, 56, 137-172.

Bourque, M.L. (Ed.). (1998). Proceedings of Achievement Levels Workshop. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Bourque, M.L. (1999). The role of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in setting, reflecting, and linking national education policy to states’ needs. In G.J. Cizek, Handbook of Educational Policy (pp. 213-249). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Bourque, M.L. (2000, April). Setting Student Performance Standards: The Role of Achievement-Level Descriptions in the Standard Setting Process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans.

Bourque, M.L. (2009). A history of NAEP achievement levels: Issues, implementation, and impact 1989-2009. Paper commissioned for the 20th anniversary of the National Assessment Governing Board. Available: https://www.nagb.org/publications/reports-papers/achievement-levels/history-naep-achievement-levels-1989-2009.html [January 2016].

Bourque, M.L., and Byrd, S. (2000). Student Performance Standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmations and Improvements. Washington DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Braswell, J., and Haberstroh, J. (2004, May). Report on the 2003 Mathematics Scale-Anchoring Study. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Brown, W.J. (2001). Social, educational, and political complexities of standard setting. In.G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Concepts, Methods, and Perspectives (pp. 373-387). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Buckendahl, C.W., Davis, S.L., Plake, B.S., Sireci, S.G., Hambleton, R.K., Zenisky, A.L., and Wells, C.S. (2009). Evaluation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Study Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Buckendahl, C.W., Smith, R.W., Impara, J.C., and Plake, B.S. (2002). A comparison of Angoff and bookmark standard-setting methods. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(3), 253-263.

Burstein, L., Koretz, D.M., Linn, R.L., Sugrue, B., Novak, J., Lewis, E., and Baker, E.L. (1993). The Validity of Interpretations of the 1992 NAEP Achievement Levels in Mathematics. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Campbell, J.R., Voekl, K.E., and Donahue, P.L. (1997). NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress: Achievement of U.S. Students in Science, 1969 to 1996; Mathematics, 1973 to 1996; Reading, 1971 to 1996; and Writing, 1984 to 1996. (NCES Report No. 97-985). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Casserly, M., Price-Baugh, R., Corcoran, A., Lewis, S., Uzzell, R., Simon, C., Heppen, J., Leinwand, S., Salinger, T., Bandeira de Mello, V., Dogan, E., and Novotny, L. (2011). Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.

Cizek, G. (Ed.). (2001). Setting Performance Standards: Concepts, Methods, and Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cizek, G. (Ed.). (2012). Setting Performance Standards: Foundations, Methods, and Innovations. New York: Rutledge.

Cizek, G., and Bunch, M. (2007). Standard Setting: A Guide to Establishing and Evaluating Performance Standards on Tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cizek, G.J., Bunch, M.B., and Koons, H. (2004). Setting performance standards: Contemporary methods. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23, 31-50.

Clauser, B.E., Mee, J., Baldwin, S.G., Margolis, M.J., and Dillon, G.F. (2009). Judges’ use of examinee performance data in an Angoff standard setting exercise for a medical licensing examination: An experimental study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46, 390-407.

The College Board. (2009). National Summary 09. Excel file. Available: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2009/NATIONAL_Summary_09.xls [August 2016].

The College Board. (2013). Student Score Distributions. Available: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/STUDENT-SCORE-DISTRIBUTIONS-2013.pdf [August 2016].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

The College Board. (2015). Student Score Distributions. Available: https://securemedia.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/research/2015/Student-Score-Distributions-2015.pdf [August 2016].

Colton, D.A., and Hecht, J.T. (1981). A Preliminary Report on a Study of Three Techniques for Setting Minimum Passing Scores. Presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, April, Los Angeles, CA.

Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). The mathematical education of teachers. Issues in Mathematics Education, Vol. 11. Providence, RI, and Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.

Crocker, L., and Zieky, M. (1995a). Executive summary. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large Scale Assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), Volume I. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Crocker, L., and Zieky, M. (1995b). Executive summary. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large Scale Assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), Volume II. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cronbach, L.J. (1949). Essentials of Psychological Testing (1st ed.). New York: Harper.

Cronbach, L.J. (1971). Test validation. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Cronbach, L.J. (1980). Validity on parole: How can we get it straight? In W.B. Schrader (Ed.), Measuring Achievement: Progress over a Decade (New Directions for Testing and Measurement No. 5, pp. 99-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, L.H., Impara, J.C., Frary, R.B., and Jaeger, R.M. (1984). A comparison of three methods for establishing minimum standards on the national teacher examinations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 113-129.

Cureton, E.E. (1951). Validity. In E.F. Lindquist (Ed.). Educational Measurement (1st ed., pp. 621-694). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Daro, P., Mosher, F.A., and Corcoran, T. (2011). Learning Trajectories in Mathematics: A Foundation for Standards, Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Available: http://www.cpre.org/ccii/images/stories/ccii_pdfs/learning%20trajectories%20in%20math_ccii%20report.pdf [November 2016].

DeVito, P.J. (1997). The future of the National Assessment of Educational Progress from the states’ perspective. In R. Glaser, R. Linn, and G. Bohrnstedt (Eds.), Assessment in Transition: Monitoring the Nation’s Educational Progress, Background Studies (pp. 31-46). Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.

Donahue, P., Pitoniak, M., and Beaulieu, N. (2010). Final Report on the Study to Draft Achievement-Level Descriptions for Reporting Results of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Reading for Grades 4, 8, and 12. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Dwyer, C.D., Gallagher, A., Levin, J., and Morley, M.E. (2003). What Is Quantitative Reasoning? Defining the Construct for Assessment Purposes. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Egan, K.L., Schneider, M.C., and Ferrara, S. (2012). Performance level descriptors: History, practice and a proposed framework. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Foundations, Methods, and Innovations (pp. 79-106). New York: Routledge.

Feldt, L.S., and Brennan, R.L. (1989). Reliablity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 105-146). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Ferdous, A.A., and Plake, B.S. (2005). Understanding the factors that influence the decisions of panelists in a standard setting study. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(3), 257-267,

Fields, R. (2013). Validity Argument for NAEP Reporting on 12th Grade Academic Preparedness for College. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Geisinger, K.F., and McCormick, C.M. (2010). Adopting cut scores: Post-standard setting panel considerations for decision makers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 31-50.

Giraud, G.T., Impara, J.C., and Buckendahl, C.W. (2000). Making the cut in school districts: Alternative methods for setting cut-scores. Educational Assessment, 6(4), 291-304.

Giraud, G.T., Impara, J.C., and Plake, B.S. (2005). Teachers’ conceptions of the target examinee in Angoff standard setting. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(3), 223-232.

Glaser, R. (1987). Commentary by the Nation’s Academy of Education, Part 2 of the Nation’s Report Card: Improving the Assessment of Student Achievement. Report of the Study Group. Cambridge, MA: National Academy of Education.

Glaser, R., Linn, R., and Bohrnstedt, G. (1997). Assessments in Transition: Monitoring the Nation’s Educational Progress. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.

Glass, G. (1978). Standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15(4), 237-261.

Gulliksen, H. (1950). Intrinsic validity. American Psychologist, 5, 511-517.

Haertel, E. (2001). The constroversy over the National Assessment Governing Board standards (p. 239). Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2001, 4, 231-265.

Hambleton, R.K., and Meara, K. (2000). Newspaper coverage of NAEP results, 1990 to 1998. In M.L. Bourque, and S. Byrd, (Eds.), Student Performance Standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmations and Improvements (pp. 131-156). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Hambleton, R.K., and Pitoniak, M.J. (2006). Setting performance standards. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 433-470). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and Praeger.

Hambleton, R.K., and Powell, S. (1983). A framework for viewing the process of standard setting. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 6, 3-24.

Hambleton, R.K., and Slater, S.C. (1995). Are NAEP Executive Summary Reports Understandable to Policy Makers and Educators? Los Angeles, CA: CRESST, UCLA.

Hambleton, R.K., and Zaal, J.N. (1991). Advances in Educational and Psychological Testing: Theory and Applications. The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Hambleton, R.K., Brennan, R.L., Brown, W., Dodd, B., Forsyth, R.A., Mehrens, W.A., Nellhaus, J., Reckase, M., Rindone, D., van der Linden, W.J., and Zwick, R. (2000a). A response to “setting reasonable and useful performance standards” in the National Academy of Sciences’ Grading the Nations’ Report Card. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(2), 5-14.

Hambleton, R.K., Jaeger, R.M., Plake, B.S., and Mills, C.N. (2000b). Setting performance standards on complex educational assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(4), 355-366.

Hambleton, R.K., Sireci, S.G., and Smith, Z.R. (2009). How do other countries measure up to the mathematics achievement levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress? Applied Measurement in Education, 22(4), 376-393.

Hambleton, R.K., Pitoniak, M.J., and Copella, J.M. (2012). Essential steps in setting performance standards on educational tests and strategies for assessing reliability of results. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Foundations, Methods, and Innovations (2nd ed., pp. 47-76). New York: Routledge.

Hamilton, L.S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E.D. Nelson, C.A., and Yuan, K. (2012). Improving School Leadership through Support, Evaluation, and Incentives: The Pittsburgh Principal Incentive Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Hansche, L.N. (1998). Handbook for the Development of Performance Standards. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Hartka, E. (1993). Comparison of Student Performance on NAEP and Other Standardized Tests. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Hayden, R.W. (1981). A history of the “new math” movement in the United States. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. Paper 7427. Available: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8426&context=rtd [March 2017].

Ho, A.D. (2008). The problem with proficiency. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351-360.

Holland, P. (2002). Two measures of change in the gaps between the CDFs of test-score distributions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(1), 3-17.

Holland, P., and Dorans, N.J. (2006). Linking and equating. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.) Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp.187-220). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and Praeger.

Huff, K., and Plake, B.S. (2010). Innovations in setting performance standards for K-12 test-based accountability. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8(2), 130-144.

Impara, J.C., and Plake, B.S. (1997) Standard setting: An alternative approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(4), 353-366.

Impara, J.C., and Plake, B.S. (1998). Teachers’ ability to estimate item difficulty: A test of the assumptions in the Angoff standard-setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 69-81.

Jaeger, R.M. (1982). An iterative structured judgment process for establishing standards on competency tests: Theory and application. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 461-476.

Jaeger, R.M. (1989). Certification of student competence. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 485-514). Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Jaeger, R.M. (1991). Selection of judges for standard-setting. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 10(2), 3-6, 10, 14.

Jaeger, R.M. (2003). NAEP Validity Studies: Reporting the Results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Working Paper 2003-11). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 350-377). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Jia, Y., Phillips, G., Wise, L.L., Rahman, T., Xu, X., Wiley, C., and Diaz, T.E. (2014). 2011 NAEP-TIMSS Linking Study: Technical Report on the Linking Methodologies and Their Evaluations (NCES 2014-461). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Johnson, E.G., and Siengondorf, A. (1998). Linking the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study: Eighth Grade Results. (NCES 98-500). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Jones, L.V., and Olkin, I. (Eds.) (2004). The Nation’s Report Card: Evolution and Perspectives. Arlington, VA: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Kane, M.T. (1993). Comments on the NAE Evaluation of the NAGB Achievement Levels. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Kane, M.T. (1994). Validating the performance standards associated with passing scores. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 425-462.

Kane, M.T. (2001). So much remains the same: Conception and status of validation in setting standards. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Concepts, Methods, and Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kane, M.T. (2006). Validation. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp.17-64). Washington DC: American Council on Education and Praeger.

Klein, L.W. (1984). Practical Considerations in the Design of Standard Setting Studies in Health Occupations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, New Orleans, LA.

Kline, M. (1973). Why Johnny Can’t Add: The Failure of the New Math. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Kolen, M.J., and Brennan, R.L. (2004). Test Equating, Linking, and Scaling: Methods and Practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Koretz, D.M., and Deibert, E. (1995/1996). Setting standards and interpreting achievement: A cautionary tale from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Assessment, 3(1), 53-81.

Lewis, D.M., and Haug, C.A. (2005). Aligning policy and methodology to achieve consistent across-grade performance standards. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(1), 11-34.

Linn, R.L. (2003). Performance standards: Utility for different uses of assessments. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(31), 1-20.

Linn, R.L., Koretz, D.M., Baker, E.L., and Burstein, L. (1992a). The Validity and Credibility of the Achievement Levels for the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Mathematics (CSE Technical Report 330). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Linn, R.L., Shepard, L., and Hartka, E. (1992b). The relative standing of states in the 1990 trial state assessment: The influence of choice of content, statistics, and subpopulation breakdowns in Studies for the Evaluation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Trial State Assessment. Stanford, CA: The National Academy of Education.

Livingston, S.A., and Zieky, M.J. (1982). Passing Scores: A Manual for Setting Standards of Performance on Educational and Occupational Tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Loomis, S.C. (2012). Selecting and training standard setting participants: State-of-the-art policies and procedure. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Foundations, Methods, and Innovations (pp. 79-106). New York: Routledge.

Loomis, S.C., and Bourque, M.L. (2001). From tradition to innovation: Standard setting on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In C.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Concepts, Methods, and Perspectives (pp. 175-218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Madaus, G.F. (1981). Minimum Competency Testing: A Critical Overview. Paper presented at the Education Conference of the Educational Records Bureau, October, New York.

McLaughlin, D.H. (1993a). Order of Angoff Ratings in Multiple Simultaneous Standards. Paper prepared for the Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment of National Academy of Education.

McLaughlin, D.H. (1993b). Rated Achievement Levels of Completed NAEP Mathematics Booklets. Paper prepared for the Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment of National Academy of Education.

McLaughlin, D.H. (1993c). Validity of the 1992 NAEP Achievement-Level-Setting Process. Paper prepared for the Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment of National Academy of Education.

Mehrens, W.A. (1995). Methodological issues in standard setting for educational exams. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (vol. II, pp. 221-263). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Mehrens, W.A., and Cizek, G.J. (2012). Standard setting for decision making: Classifications, consequences, and the common good. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Foundations, Methods, and Innovations (Ch. 3, 2nd ed.) New York: Routledge.

Meskauskas, J. (1986). Setting standards for credentialing examinations: An update. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 9(2), 187-203.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13- 103). Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Mills, C.N., and Jaeger, R.M. (1998). Creating descriptions of desired student achievement when setting performance standards. In L. Hansche (Ed.), Handbook for the Development of Performance Standards: Meeting the Requirements of Title 1 (pp. 73-85). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Mills, C.N., and Melican, G.J. (1988). Estimating and adjusting cutoff scores: Features of selected methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(3), 261-275.

Mills, C.N., Melican, G.J., and Ahluwalia, N.T. (1991). Defining minimal competence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2), 7-10.

Mills, C.N., Hambleton, R.K., Biskin, B., Kobrin, J., Evans, J., and Pfeffer, M. (2000). A Comparison of the Standard-Setting Method for the Uniform CPA Examination. Jersey City, NJ: American Institute for Certified Public Accountants.

Moran, R., Oranje, A., and Freund, D. (n.d.). NAEP 12th Grade Preparedness Research: Establishing a Statistical Relationship Between NAEP and SAT. Available: http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/what-we-do/preparedness-statistical-relationships/SAT-NAEP_Linking_Study.pdf research/ [April 2016].

Morgan, D.L., and Perie, M. (2004). Setting Standards in Education: Choosing the Best Method for Your Assessment and Population. Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service.

Moss, P. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229-258.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., and Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). 2013 Mathematics and Reading: Grade-12 Assessments. Available: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_g12_2013/#/what-knowledge [August 2016].

The Nation’s Report Card. (2015a). Knowledge and Skills: Grade 4. Available: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics/questions?grade=4 [August 2016].

The Nation’s Report Card. (2015b). National Achievement-Level Results: Grade-4 Mathematics. Available: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics/acl?grade=4 [August 2016].

The Nation’s Report Card. (2015c). National Achievement-Level Results: Grade 4-Reading. Available: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/acl?grade=4 [August 2016].

The Nation’s Report Card. (2015d). National Achievement-Level Results: Grade-8 Mathematics. Available: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics/acl?grade=8 [August 2016].

The Nation’s Report Card. (2015e). National Achievement-Level Results: Grade-8 Reading. Available” http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading/acl?grade=8 [August 2016].

The Nation’s Report Card. (2015f). State Achievement-Level Results: Grade 4. Available: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics/state/acl?grade=4 [August 2016].

The Nation’s Report Card. (2015g). State Results Overview: Grade 4. Available: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics/state?grade=4 [August 2016].

The Nation’s Report Card. (2016). Homepage. Available: http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ [March 2016].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

National Academy of Education. (1993a). Setting Performance Standards for Student Achievement: A Report of the National Academy of Education Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment: An Evaluation of the 1992 Achievement Levels. Washington, DC: Author

National Academy of Education. (1993b). Setting Performance Standards for Student Achievement: Background Studies. Washington, DC: Author.

National Assessment Governing Board. (1990). Setting Appropriate Achievement Levels for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Policy Framework and Technical Procedures. Washington, DC: Author.

National Assessment Governing Board. (1993). Setting Achievement Levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Policy Statement. Washington, DC: Author.

National Assessment Governing Board. (1995). Developing Student Performance Levels for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Policy Statement. Washington, DC: Author.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2006). Reporting, Release, and Dissemination of NAEP Results: Policy Statement. Washington, DC: Author.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2015). Mathematics Framework for the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Available: http://www.edpubs.gov/document/ed005557p.pdf?ck=15 [February 2016].

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). NAEP: Looking Ahead—Leading Assessments into the Future. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). History of Framework Changes. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/frameworkcomparison.aspx [October 2016].

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Council on Measurement in Education. (1978, December). Special Issue: Setting Standards. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14(4), 237-319.

National Education Goals Panel. (1999). The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Governors’ Association. (1991). Time for Results: The Governors’ 1991 Report on Education. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council. (1999). Grading the Nation’s Report Card: Evaluating NAEP and Transforming the Assessment of Educational Progress. Committee on the Evaluation of National and State Assessments of Educational Progress. J.W. Pellegrino, L.R. Jones, and K.J. Mitchell, (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nitko, A.J. (Ed.) (1991). Editorial. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2), 2-41.

Norcini, J.J. (2003). Setting standards on educational tests. Medical Education, 37(5), 464-469.

Norcini, J.J., and Shea, J.A. (1992). The reproducibility of standards over groups and occasions. Applied Measurement in Education, 5, 63-72.

Norcini, J.J., Lipner, R.S., Langdon, L.O., and Strecker, C.A. (1987). A comparison of three variations on a standard-setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 56-64.

Norcini, J.J., Shea, J.A., and Kanya, D.T. (1988). The effect of various factors on standards setting. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 57-64.

OECD. (2014), PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (vol. 1, revised ed.). Washington, DC: OECD.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Ogle, L., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., Roey, S., and Williams, T. (2003). International Comparisons in Fourth-Grade Reading Literacy: Findings from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) of 2001. NCES #2003–073. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003073.pdf [February 2017].

Pashley, P.J., and Phillips, G.W. (1993). Toward World Class Standards: A Research Study Linking National and International Assessments. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Pearson, D., and DeStefano, L. (1993). An evaluation of the 1992 NAEP reading achievement levels, report two: An analysis of the achievement-level descriptions. In L.A. Shepard, R. Glaser, R. Linn, and G. Bohrnstedt (Eds.). Setting Performance Standards for Student Achievement. Report of the NAE Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment: An Evaluation of the 1992 Achievement Levels (pp. 183-203). Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.

Perie, M. (2008). A guide to understanding and developing performance-level descriptors. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(4), 15-29.

Phillips, C.J. (2015). The New Math: A Political History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Phillips, G.W. (2007). Expressing International Educational Achievement in Terms of U.S. Performance Standards: Linking NAEP Achievement Levels to TIMSS. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Pitoniak, M., Dion, G., and Garber, D. (2010). Final Report on the Study to Draft Achievement-Level Descriptions for Reporting Results of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress in Mathematics for Grade 12. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Plake, B.S., and Impara, J.C. (2001). Ability of panelists to estimate item performance for a target group of candidates: An issue in judgmental standard setting. Educational Assessment, 7(2), 87-97.

Plake, B.S., Mellican, G.J., and Mills, C.N. (1991). Factors influencing intra-judge consistency during standard-setting. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2), 15-16, 22, 25-26.

Plake, B.S., Impara, J.C., and Potenza, M.T. (1994). Content specificity of expert judgements in a standard-setting study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 339-347.

Plake, B.S., Huff, K., and Reshetar, R. (2010). Evidence-centered assessment design as a foundation for achievement-level descriptor development and for standard setting. Applied Measurement in Education, 23(4), 342-357.

Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., and Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights from TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 2013-009 revised). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013009_1rev.pdf [February 2017].

Reckase, M.D. (2001). The controversy over the National Assessment Governing Board standards. Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2001, 4, 231-265.

Rubin, D.B. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Schmidt, W.H., Houang, R., and Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26(2), 10-26.

Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C.C. (2007). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559.

Shepard, L.A. (1976). Setting standards and living with them. Florida Journal of Educational Research, 18, 28-32.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Shepard, L.A. (1979). Setting standards. In M.A. Bunda and J.R. Sanders (Eds.), Practices and Problems in Competency Based Education (pp. 59-71). Washington DC: National Council on Measurement in Education.

Shepard, L.A., Glaser, R., Linn, R., Bohrnstedt, G. (1993). Setting Performance Standards for Student Achievement. Report of the NAE Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment: An Evaluation of the 1992 Achievement Levels. Stanford, CA: The National Academy of Education.

Shultz, E.M., Lee, W., and Mullen, K. (2005). A domain-level approach to describing growth in achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42(1), 1-26.

Schulz, E.M., and Mitzel, H.C. (n.d.). The Mapmark Standard Setting Method. Available: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490643.pdf [April 2016].

Silver, E.A., and Kenney, P.A. (1993). Expert panel review of the 1992 NAEP mathematics achievement levels. In National Academy of Education, Setting Performance Standards for Student Achievement: Background Studies (pp. 215-282). Stanford, CA: Author.

Simmons, C., and Mwalimu, M. (2000). What NAEP’s public have to say. In M.L. Bourque and S. Byrd (Eds.), Student Performance Standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmations and Improvements (pp. 183-219). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Skorupski, W., and Hambleton, R.K. (2005). What are panelists thinking when they participate in standard setting studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(3), 233-255.

Smith, R.L., and Smith, J.K. (1988). Differential use of item information by judges using Angoff and Nedelsky procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 259-274.

Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Available: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1465.pdf [February 2017].

Stanley, J.C. (1971). Reliablity. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 356-442). Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (2001). Lessons in contracting for evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3), 293-314.

Subkoviak, M.J., Kane, M.T., and Duncan, P.H. (2002). A comparative student of the Angoff and Nedelsky methods: Implications for validity. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 15(2), 3-7.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011a). Figure 2. Percentage of 4th-Grade Students Reaching the TIMSS International Benchmarks in Mathematics, by Education System: 2011. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/figure11_2.asp [April 2016].

U.S. Department of Education. (2011b). Figure 4. Percentage uf 8th-Grade Students Reaching the TIMSS International Benchmarks in Mathematics, by Education System: 2011. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/timss/figure11_4.asp [August 2016].

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Mathematics Literacy: Proficiency Levels. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_3_1.asp [April 2016].

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992). National Assessment Technical Quality. Report No. GAO/PEMD-92-22R. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Educational Achievement Standards: NAGB’s Approach Yields Misleading Interpretations. Report No. GAO/PEMD-993-12. Washington, DC: Author.

Vinovskis, M.A. (1998). Overseeing the Nation’s Report Card: The Creation of Evaluation of the National Assessment Governing Board. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×

Watanabe, T. (2007). In pursuit of a focused and coherent school mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 17(1), 2-6.

Wyatt, J., Korbin, J., Wiley, A., Camara, W.J., and Proestler, N. (2011). SAT Benchmarks: Development of a College Readiness Benchmark and Its Relationship to Secondary and Postsecondary School Performance. New York: The College Board. Available: https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-2011-5-satcollege-readiness-benchmark-secondary-performance.pdf [April 2016].

Zeiky, M.J. (2001). So much has changed: How the setting of cutscores has evolved since the 1980s. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Concepts, Methods, and Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zeiky, M.J. (2012). So much has changed: An historical overview of setting cut scores. In G.J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting Performance Standards: Foundation, Methods, and Innovations, Second Edition (pp. 15-33). New York: Routledge.

Zeiky, M., Perie, M., Livingston, S. (2008). Cutscores: A Manual for Setting Standards of Performance on Educational and Occupations Tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Zenisky, A., Hambleton, R.K., and Sireci, S.G. (2009). Getting the message out: An evaluation of NAEP score reporting practices with implications for disseminating test results. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(4), 359-375.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23409.
×
Page 260
Next: Appendix A: Agenda for Public Forum »
Evaluation of the Achievement Levels for Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $69.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has been providing policymakers, educators, and the public with reports on academic performance and progress of the nation’s students. The assessment is given periodically in a variety of subjects: mathematics, reading, writing, science, the arts, civics, economics, geography, U.S. history, and technology and engineering literacy. NAEP is given to representative samples of students across the U.S. to assess the educational progress of the nation as a whole.

Since 1992, NAEP results have been reported in relation to three achievement levels: basic, proficient, and advanced. However, the use of achievement levels has provoked controversy and disagreement, and evaluators have identified numerous concerns. This publication evaluates the NAEP student achievement levels in reading and mathematics in grades 4, 8, and 12 to determine whether the achievement levels are reasonable, reliable, valid, and informative to the public, and recommends ways that the setting and use of achievement levels can be improved.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!