Evidence of comparability is generally needed whenever there are variations in the conditions of an assessment administration, including variations introduced by the administration of an assessment on multiple digital devices (e.g., tablet, laptop, desktop). This article is meant to provide a comprehensive examination of issues relevant to the…

Methodological procedures used in validating the theoretical structure of academic self-concept and validating associated measurement instruments are reviewed. Substantive findings from research related to modes of inquiry are summarized, and recommendations for future research are outlined. (TJH)

This article provides a framework for the rest of the articles in this special issue comparing the utility of three standard-setting methods with complex performance assessments. The context of the standard setting study is described, and the methods are outlined. (SLD)

A brief summary of standard setting knowledge is presented, derived from about 20 methods that utilize a judgmental review process, the approach most relevant to the standard-setting strategies proposed in this special issue. Criteria for judging effectiveness and critiques of the methods discussed in the issue are offered. (SLD)

The articles of this special issue propose two methods of deriving an initial standard and one method for determining the extent to which the standard should include compensation. Much work remains to be done on further development of the methods and the larger issues of policy regarding performance assessment. (SLD)

Criteria used in the equating process proposed in the literature are reviewed. The discussion begins by examining how equating is defined. The controversy over the best criterion, the utility of some, and whether a criterion is needed at all means that much work needs to be done in this area. (SLD)

The three standard-setting approaches described in this special issue are summarized and contrasted: (1) judgmental policy capturing; (2) the extended Angoff method; and (3) the dominant profile method. An integrative summary of findings is followed by recommendations for modifying the methods. (SLD)

Thirty-two content evaluation studies of teacher licensure tests were reviewed; and methodological differences were noted regarding evaluation focus, the stringency of the charge to expert panelists, and the manner in which panelists' ratings were analyzed. Normative expectations for such content ratings are prepared. (SLD)

The old era of educational assessment and reasons for its demise are described. The new era will be different and will present four challenges to the assessment community: (1) new assessment targets; (2) technical challenges of alternative assessments; (3) demystifying assessment and evaluation; and (4) reexamining assessment priorities. (SLD)