The term "criterion-referenced measurement" has been so frequently used that accumulated surplus meaning has sometimes swamped the fundamental concept. Stripping away extraneous interpretations affirms the contemporary relevance of the concept. Substituting the term "construct-referenced" underscores the need for better…

The internal validity of the RMC models, especially Model A, is examined. Concern centers on limiting evaluation to cognitive outcomes, using constant percentile as the no-treatment expectation, and using norms for one test to establish the expected no-treatment performance level for another test. (MH)

In considering the problem of measuring achievement for the evaluation of school effectiveness, there are at least three questions that need to be answered: (1) What is to be measured? (2) How is it to be measured? (3) How are the results to be analyzed? Following a discussion related to the first two questions--determining content objectives and…

Four main approaches to customized testing are described, and their resulting scores' valid uses and interpretations are discussed. Customized testing can yield valid normative and curriculum-specific information, although cautious application is needed to avoid misleading inferences about student achievement. (SLD)

Results of a 1987 report--indicating that elementary students of all 50 states were above the national average--were assessed via 2 national mail and telephone surveys. Although results of data for 35 states support the general findings of the 1987 report, it appears that more specific results are less sensational. (TJH)

The three RMC models endorsed by the U.S. Office of Education for the evaluation of Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I programs are based on narrowly conceived approaches to evaluation--the measurement of cognitive achievement gains. Each model requires the comparison of observed student performance with an estimate of what level of…