Campbell, D.T., & J.C. Stanley.1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
2.
Echternacht, G.1988. Models of program evaluation. Unpublished document. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
3.
Elman, A.1981. Quality control in Title 1: Manual versus computer conversions of test scores. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research.
4.
Hopstock, P., and M. Young.1990. A review of local Title VII project evaluation plan and evaluation reports. U.S. Department of Education, Contract no. LC89023001. Arlington, VA: Development Associates, Inc.
5.
Keesling, J.W.1984. Differences between fail-to-spring and annual gains in evaluating Chapter 1 programs. Oxnard, CA: Advanced Technology.
6.
Kimball, G.H.1989. Chapter 1 evaluation: Gap reduction methodology compared to NCE gains analysis. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association (AREA) Conference, March , San Francisco.
7.
Kimball, G.H., and J. Crawford.1983. Compensating for underspecified models in the analysis of compensatory program treatment effects. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association (AREA) Conference, April, Montreal, Canada.
8.
Lam, T.C.M.1989. What is the gap-reduction design, really?Paper presented at the Annual National Association of Bilingual Education Conference, May, Miami, Fl.
9.
Linn, R.L.1979. Validity of inferences based on the proposed Title 1 evaluation models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis1(2): 23-32.
10.
—. 1982. The validity of the Title 1 evaluation and reporting system . In Assessment of the Title 1 evaluation and reporting system , edited by E. R. Reisner, M. C. Alkin, R. F. Boruch , R. L. Linn, and J. Millman.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
11.
Mark, M.M., and R.L. Shotland.1987. New direction for program evaluation. Multiple methods in program evaluation, vol. 35. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Murray, S., and J. Arter.1980. Internal validity of the ESEA Title 1 evaluation models. In New directions for testing and measurement: Measurement aspects of Title 1 evaluations, edited by G. Echternacht.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Peleg, R.Z.1978. Impact assessment in the evaluation of bilingual programs: Is it feasible? Educational Technology18:19-23.
14.
Powers, S., H. Slaughter, and C. Helmick.1983. A test of the equipercentile hypothesis of the TIERS norm-referenced model. Journal of Educational Measurement20 (3): 299-302.
15.
Reisner, E.R., M.C. Alkin, R.F. Boruch, R.L. Linn, and J. Millman.1982. Assessment of the Title 1 evaluation and reporting system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
16.
Roberts, A.Q.H.1980. Regression toward the mean and the regression-effect bias . New Directions for Testing and Measurement8:59-82.
17.
Tallmadge, G.K.1982. An empirical assessment of norm-referenced evaluation methodology. Journal of Educational Measurement19 (2): 97-112.
18.
—. 1985. Rumors regarding the death of the equipercentile assumption may have been greatly exaggerated. Journal of Educational Measurement22 (1): 33-9.
