This study assessed the measurement properties, internal structure, and criterion validity of 39 multiple choice achievement items developed to assess Grade 3 visual arts learning. The results showed that a test of 38 items for Grade 3 generally fit the Rasch measurement model with moderate reliability (Rtt = .85). Standardized effect size between art and nonart groups in Grades 3, 7, and high school was .38, .21, and .42, respectively. Content and criterion validation with limitations supported its use, but confirmatory factor analysis indicated that future studies are needed to clarify the test construct.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
Bennett, G. (1989). Words in my eyes: The assessment of art and design in GCSE. Educational Studies, 15, 241-249.
3.
Bezruczko, N. (1989). An assessment of visual learning. Chicago: Sheffield. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 359 255)
4.
Bezruczko, N. (1994). Development and evaluation of a visual arts achievement test. Unpublished report. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 359 255)
5.
Eisner, E. W. (1985). The art of educational evaluation: A personal view. London: Falmer.
6.
Frechtling, J. A. (1991). Performance assessment: Moonstruck or the real thing?Educational Measurement, 10, 23-25.
7.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain. New York: Basic Books.
8.
Getty Institute for Educators on the Visual Arts . (1985). Executive summary of the final report on Institute '84. Los Angeles: Author.
9.
Higgins, R. E. (1989). Approaches to evaluation in art education at the state level. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 310 157)
10.
Hoepfner, R. (1984). Measuring student achievement in art. Studies in Art Education, 25, 251-258.
11.
Illinois State Board of Education . (n.d.). State goals for learning and sample learning objectives: Fine arts: Grades 3, 6, 8, 10, 12. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Education, Department of School Improvement Services.
12.
Kramer, J. J. , & Conoley, J. C. (1992). (Eds.). The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements of the University of Nebraska Press.
13.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1981). Art and young Americans, 1974-1979: Results from the second national art assessment (Art Report No. 10-A-01). Washington, DC: Author.
14.
Wright, B. D. , & Linacre, J. M. (1992). BIGSTEPS. Chicago: MESA.
