html5-img
1 / 17

ACCUPLACER R Wins Approval Again in California

ACCUPLACER R Wins Approval Again in California. Ron Gordon Gordon Associates ACCUPLACER R Conference Las Vegas, 2005. How it Started. MALDEF Mexican American Legal Defense Fund “Restricting Enrollment in courses with tests that have not been validated.”

cachez
Download Presentation

ACCUPLACER R Wins Approval Again in California

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACCUPLACERRWins Approval Again in California Ron Gordon Gordon Associates ACCUPLACERR Conference Las Vegas, 2005

  2. How it Started • MALDEF • Mexican American Legal Defense Fund • “Restricting Enrollment in courses with tests that have not been validated.” • Tests Must be Approved by the Chancellor • Enrollment cannot be restricted on the basis of test scores alone.

  3. The Legal Situation • Tests must be valid on the basis of content and either criterion or consequence. • Tests must demonstrate reasonable reliability • Tests must be free from disproportionate impact • Colleges must evaluate for content and consequence, and for disproportionate impact. • Colleges must set appropriate cut scores. • Colleges must develop a “multiple measures” approach to placement.

  4. ACCUPLACERR History • First Approved in 1993 for 6 Years • 1-Year Extension for all Tests • Submitted Data in Fall, 1998 • Approval Rejected in June, 1999 • Re-approved in January, 2000 for 6 years • Re-approved in January, 2005 until January, 2012

  5. Approval Process • Submit validity analysis from at least 6 California Colleges • Report must show that 75% of faculty and students agree that placement is accurate (consequential model) or that course grades correlate with test scores with Pearson’s R of .35 (criterion model)

  6. Approval Process • Demonstrate reliability • (test/retest model) • Item bias analysis • (DIF, linguistic bias, and Disproportionate Impact) • Specify user support • Manuals, technical help • ADA

  7. Gathering Data • 23 colleges participated • Surveyed faculty and students • Students could be under-prepared, adequately prepared, or over-prepared • More than 16,000 students surveyed • More than 900 faculty participated • Most colleges sent back individual completed surveys • A few input the data to electronic files

  8. Data Preparation • Identify students who had taken a prerequisite course • Group data by discipline and level • Code courses by level • First transferable course = 0 • Code survey results • Move Over-Prepared to next level • Cluster scores in increments of 5

  9. PlacementAccuracy

  10. Analysis • Frequency distribution of responses across score clusters • Objective: Determine whether ACCUPLACERR can place students with accuracy above 75% • Appropriate cut score is the point at which “Adequately Prepared” is near apex and “Over-Prepared” has not begun to increase significantly

  11. Typical Data Set

  12. Findings • ACCUPLACERR Tests Place Students with greater than 82% Accuracy • ACCUPLACERR Passes Tests for Disproportionate Impact • The New Arithmetic and Algebra Items Show No Linguistic Bias • The New Arithmetic and Algebra Items Demonstrate Exceptional Test/Retest Reliability

  13. Approval • Reading Comprehension, Sentence Skills, Arithmetic, Algebra, CLM, 3 LOEP tests Received Full Approval Until 2012

  14. Additional Findings • WritePlacer Plus and WritePlacer ESL showed no Linguistic Bias in Prompts or Instructions. • LOEP Listening Showed Significant Linguistic Bias • Negative ethnic references • Ethnically identifiable names in stereotypical circumstances

  15. Conclusions • ACCUPLACERR Remains an Effective Test for use in California Community Colleges. • WritePlacer Plus and WritePlacer ESL Have Moved a Step Closer to Approval in California • LOEP Listening Needs Work, but Appears to be an Effective Instrument for ESL Placement

  16. ACCUPLACERRWins Approval Again in California Ron Gordon Gordon Associates Thank You for Not Throwing Things at the Presenter

More Related