subject: The General Views on Educational Assessments [print this page] The General Views on Educational Assessments
We have discussed the components of the kind of validation argument that underlies the intended inferences to be made from any assessment. We have illustrated how intended inferences, or claims, about test-takers' target skills or knowledge need to be based both on warrants that are backed by relevant theory or research findings, and on data. These data consist of two types: (1) the test-taker's response to the assessment task and (2) the characteristics of the assessment task. We have explained that a variety of test-takers' characteristics, such as disabilities, insufficient proficiency in English, or lack of cultural knowledge, can constitute alternative explanations for their performance on assessments. We have also discussed the ways specific accommodations can be described in terms of specific aspects of the assessment tasks and administration procedures.
The committee has reviewed a variety of materials about the NAEP assessment (National Assessment Governing Board [NAGB], 2001, 2002a, 2002b; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003a, 2003b) and has heard presentations by NAEP and NAGB officials about these topics. In light of the validity issues related to inclusion and accommodations for students with disabilities and English language learners that have been discussed, we draw the following conclusions: Conclusion 6-1: My validation argument for NAEP is not as well articulated as it should be with respect to inferences based on accommodated versions of NAEP assessments. Conclusion 6-2: Even when the validation argument is well articulated, there is insufficient evidence to support the validity of inferences based on alterations in NAEP assessment tasks or administrative procedures for accommodating students with disabilities and English language learners. For this part, students may investigate how to understanding a foreign language, however, learning a foreign language needs a leaning tools, many students choose Rosetta Stone Japanese and Rosetta Stone Korean to learn Japanese and Korean. On the basis of these conclusions we make three recommendations to NAEP officials. Although these recommendations are specific to NAEP, we strongly urge the sponsors of other large-scale assessment programs to consider them as well. Recommendation 6-1: NAEP officials should identify the inferences that they intend should be made from its assessment results and clearly articulate the validation arguments in support of those inferences.
RECOMMENDATION 6-2: NAEP officials should embark on a research agenda that is guided by the claims and counterclaims for intended uses of results in the validation argument they have articulated. This research should apply a variety of approaches and types of evidence, such as analyses of test content, test-takers' cognitive processes, criterion-related evidence, and other studies deemed appropriate. Recommendation 6-3: NAEP officials should conduct empirical research to specifically evaluate the extent to which the validation argument that underlies each NAEP assessment and the inferences the assessment was designed to support are affected by the use of particular accommodation.
