A Framework for Evaluating the Consequences Programs of Assessment

Abstract

How can the enterprise of looking at the consequences of testing in America be moved forward? What are the responsibilities of the key actors? How can we accumulate the evidence that we need?

Psychological Processes Underlying Stereotype Threat and Standardized Math Test Performance

“…These differences were examined in empirical investigations of the particular technical characteristics of the test, conceptual work, and occasionally empirical investigations regarding the social consequences of testing (Lane, Park, & Stone, 1998;Messick, 1989;1995). Although 60 RYAN AND RYAN FIGURE 1 Conceptual model of psychological processes underlying stereotype threat and standardized math test performance.…”

Impact of a state performance assessment program in reading and writing

“…This aspect of validity evidence examines the impact that the standards and assessments have on curriculum, classroom instruction, and assessment practices, beliefs and attitudes, professional development support, preparation for the assessment, and decision-making. Messick (1989), Linn (1993), Lane, Parke, and Stone (1998), Mehrens (1998), and others have stressed the importance of collecting this type of evidence to determine whether the assessment is living up to its intended purposes and, equally important, whether there are any unintended or potentially negative consequences of the assessment. Results are informative to the developers of the assessment, as well as to those who are directly affected by the assessment system and its consequences.…”

Validation of Large-Scale Alternate Assessment Systems and Their Influence on Instruction —What Are the Consequences?

“…While there is some controversy over the use of perception data to measure validity (Linn, 1997;Mehrens, 1997;Popham, 1997;Shepard, 1997), there appears to be overwhelming support for the importance of addressing what we call the &dquo;so what&dquo; question -did the assessment achieve the purpose for which it was intended (Haertel, 1999;Kane, 2002;Lane, Parke, & Stone, 1998;Lane & Stone, 2002;Linn, 1997Linn, , 1998Ryan, 2002;Shepard, 1997 ) ? While there is some controversy over the use of perception data to measure validity (Linn, 1997;Mehrens, 1997;Popham, 1997;Shepard, 1997), there appears to be overwhelming support for the importance of addressing what we call the &dquo;so what&dquo; question -did the assessment achieve the purpose for which it was intended (Haertel, 1999;Kane, 2002;Lane, Parke, & Stone, 1998;Lane & Stone, 2002;Linn, 1997Linn, , 1998Ryan, 2002;Shepard, 1997 ) ?…”

“…While there is some controversy over the use of perception data to measure validity (Linn, 1997;Mehrens, 1997;Popham, 1997;Shepard, 1997), there appears to be overwhelming support for the importance of addressing what we call the &dquo;so what&dquo; question -did the assessment achieve the purpose for which it was intended (Haertel, 1999;Kane, 2002;Lane, Parke, & Stone, 1998;Lane & Stone, 2002;Linn, 1997Linn, , 1998Ryan, 2002;Shepard, 1997 ) ? Inherent to the discussion of consequential validity are the concepts of intended and unintended consequences (Lane et al, 1998;Lane & Stone, 2002;Kane, 2002). Inherent to the discussion of consequential validity are the concepts of intended and unintended consequences (Lane et al, 1998;Lane & Stone, 2002;Kane, 2002).…”