Criterion-Referenced Testing and Measurement: A Review of Technical Issues and Developments

Hambleton, Ronald K.; Swaminathan, Hariharan; Algina, James; Coulson, Douglas Bill

doi:10.3102/00346543048001001

Cited by 193 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For more information about criterion-referenced measurement, see Hambleton et al (1978), Harris et al (1974), and Popham (1978).…”

Section: Reliability In Criterion-referenced Measurementmentioning

confidence: 98%

Reliability: Measurement

Rindskopf¹

2015

International Encyclopedia of the Social &Amp; Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliability of measurement refers to the dependability or repeatability of the measurement process: Does one get about the same answer when one measures a construct several times, or using similar methods of measurement, or using different people? Relevant theory comes from classical test theory, item response theory, generalizability theory, and related statistical methods. Classical test theory and generalizability theory are theories of the performance of a whole test or instrument (e.g., questionnaire), whereas item response theory deals with the behavior of individual test items as well as the whole test.

show abstract

“…For more information about criterion-referenced measurement, see Hambleton et al (1978), Harris et al (1974), and Popham (1978).…”

Section: Reliability In Criterion-referenced Measurementmentioning

confidence: 98%

Reliability: Measurement

Rindskopf¹

2015

International Encyclopedia of the Social &Amp; Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The more recent developments in criterion and domain referenced testing formalize this notion (Hambleton, Swaminathan, Algina, & Coulson, 1978;Popham, 1978). Test construction usually begins with some at-1 tempt to list or identify the important concepts and perhaps rank (informally/intuitively) the relative importance of these concepts.…”

Section: Traditional Classroom Testingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Testing for misunderstanding

Surber

Smith

1981

Educational Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article briefly reviews three areas of research related to testing and the assessment of memory structures. The research is criticized from the standpoint of either, (a) failing to provide achievement testing methods that yield useful diagnostic information for instruction or, (b) not being practical for instructional purposes. An alternative achievement testing method, based on research on reading comprehension, is proposed. Preliminary research on the alternative testing method is summarized.

show abstract

“…Reliability Similar to the preceding topic, the literature is replete with studies and reviews of criterion-referenced test reliability. More than a dozen indices have been proposed; and critical reviews of those indices have been conducted by Berk (in press), Hambleton, Swaminathan, Algina, and Coulson (1978), Linn (1979a), Millman (1979), and now Traub and Rowley (in this issue). This section will examine the contribution of the latter review.…”

Section: Decision Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Framework for Methodological Advances in Criterion-Referenced Testing

Berk

1980

Applied Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A vast body of methodological research on criterion-referenced testing has been amassed over the past decade. Much of that research is synthesized in the articles contained in this issue. The fact that this issue is devoted exclusively to criterion-referenced testing sets it apart as a quintessential journal publication on the topic. This paper is intended to provide a broad framework for understanding and evaluating the individual contributions in the context of the literature. The six articles appear to fall into four major categories: (1) test length; (2) validity; (3) standard setting; and (4) reliability. These categories correspond to most of the technical topics in the test development process (see, e.g., Berk, 1980b;Hambleton, 1980). Test LengthIf a teacher or curriculum specialist asked a psychometrician, 'How many items should be written for each objective?' or 'How many items should be sampled from the domain?' what answer could be given? Whether the test is norm referenced or criterion referenced, there is no available source that recommends a magical number of items. The guidelines offered in most measurement texts and technical papers on the topic are rather nonspecific; however, this perplexing issue cannot be dismissed or ignored, as are the properties of validity and reliability analyzed in subsequent sections of this paper. Every test maker, teacher through test publisher, must answer the test length question.The problem of determining test length can be approached from a practical perspective based on research evidence and/or from a purely technical perspective. The former has been explicated previously in terms of a multiplicity of factors, including importance and type of decision making, importance and emphases assigned to objectives, number of objectives, and practical constraints (Berk, 1980c); the latter constitutes the orientation of Wilcox's article.Wilcox has organized his review according to three achievement test conceptualizations based on three different types of true score: (1) the number of items a student would answer correctly if every item in the item domain was answered; (2) the proportion of skills among a domain of skills that a APPLIED

show abstract

Criterion-Referenced Testing and Measurement: A Review of Technical Issues and Developments

Cited by 193 publications

References 57 publications

Reliability: Measurement

Reliability: Measurement

Testing for misunderstanding

A Framework for Methodological Advances in Criterion-Referenced Testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About