Publication Date
| In 2025 | 0 |
| Since 2024 | 0 |
| Since 2021 (last 5 years) | 0 |
| Since 2016 (last 10 years) | 0 |
| Since 2006 (last 20 years) | 1 |
Descriptor
| Measurement Techniques | 3 |
| Statistical Analysis | 3 |
| Evaluation Methods | 2 |
| Test Items | 2 |
| Book Reviews | 1 |
| Disabilities | 1 |
| Educational Assessment | 1 |
| Groups | 1 |
| Models | 1 |
| Multidimensional Scaling | 1 |
| Special Needs Students | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Educational Measurement:… | 3 |
Author
| Bottsford-Miller, Nicole A. | 1 |
| Chronbach, Lee J. | 1 |
| Gierl, Mark J. | 1 |
| Johnstone, Christopher J. | 1 |
| Thompson, Sandra J. | 1 |
| Thurlow, Martha L. | 1 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 3 |
| Reports - Evaluative | 2 |
| Book/Product Reviews | 1 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Direct linkJohnstone, Christopher J.; Thompson, Sandra J.; Bottsford-Miller, Nicole A.; Thurlow, Martha L. – Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2008
Test items undergo multiple iterations of review before states and vendors deem them acceptable to be placed in a live statewide assessment. This article reviews three approaches that can add validity evidence to states' item review processes. The first process is a structured sensitivity review process that focuses on universal design…
Descriptors: Test Items, Disabilities, Test Construction, Testing Programs
Peer reviewedChronbach, Lee J. – Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 1989
The book reviewed is a compendium of current thinking about measurement theory and test use. It includes content by 26 authors at 3 levels: (1) accessible to educators, policy makers, and graduate students; (2) suited for technical students; and (3) written for qualified measurement specialists. Strengths and weaknesses are noted. (SLD)
Descriptors: Book Reviews, Educational Assessment, Evaluation Methods, Measurement Techniques
Gierl, Mark J. – Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2005
In this paper I describe and illustrate the Roussos-Stout (1996) multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm, with emphasis on its implication for the selection of a matching and studied subtest for DIF analyses. Standard DIF practice encourages an exploratory search for matching subtest items based on purely statistical criteria, such as a…
Descriptors: Models, Test Items, Test Bias, Statistical Analysis
