1 / 8

Take-Home Message: Principles Unique to Alternate Assessments

Take-Home Message: Principles Unique to Alternate Assessments. William D. Schafer University of Maryland. What is the Inference?. Validity depends on the inference that is to be taken from an assessment.

gyda
Download Presentation

Take-Home Message: Principles Unique to Alternate Assessments

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. Take-Home Message: Principles Unique to Alternate Assessments William D. Schafer University of Maryland

  2. What is the Inference? • Validity depends on the inference that is to be taken from an assessment. • For alternate assessments, it makes most sense to consider a summative PROGRAM EVALUATION inference. • The crucial inference is: Did the student’s teacher meet his or her educational goals?

  3. Interpreting Scores • In order to make any inference, a student’s score needs to be contextualized • For NCLB assessments, it makes most sense to contextualize the score using achievement levels and their associated cut-scores • Criterion referencing rather than norm referencing

  4. Evaluating Cut Scores • Cut-score reliability and validity are as important as are reliability and validity of student scores • Cut scores and proficiency level descriptions help implement the FUNDAMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLE: Test every student on what they are supposed to be studying • For the regular assessment, cut score reliability and validity are developed through standard-setting studies • Alternate Assessments are different:

  5. Individualizing Success • All students who take Alternate Assessments have IEPs • Students’ educational goals may be individualized (e.g., through IEPs) • Achievement standards should also be individualized • Judgments about reliability and validity of achievement standards (criteria) should reflect that individualization

  6. Grouping for Psychometric Study • Groupings of students may make sense in order to generate reliability and validity evidence • Degree of challenge might be low, medium, high – or other system • Age of diagnosis might be a proxy for degree of challenge • Qualitative differences might also be used to develop groups

  7. An Expectation for Validity Evidence • A positive outcome for validity evidence would be to find that the degrees of challenge students face are independent of the achievement level judgments they receive • This is my belief, but it is controversial • Others believe that like the regular assessment, we should expect scores to reveal lower achievement (and achievement levels) for students who are most challenged • This is a fundamental philosophical principle that separates alternate assessments from each other

  8. Reliability: True Variancevs. Replicability • We should be more interested in documenting capacity for replication of results than identification of individual differences (traditional reliability) • True variance is not a useful construct and neither is variance partitioning • More useful is to conceptualize reliability as sufficiency of evidence for replication • Decision Accuracy for Alt-MSA is an example

More Related