1959. Report of the Commission on Mathematics.Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board.
2.
AlexanderL.1991. America 2000.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
3.
BeckM.1991. “‘Authentic Assessment’ for Large-Scale Accountability Purposes: Balancing the Rhetoric,” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
4.
BennettR. E., RockD. A., and WangeM.1991. “Equivalence of Free-Response and Multiple-Choice Items,”Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(1): 77–92.
5.
BennettR. E., RockD. A., BraunH. I., FryeD., SpohrerJ. C., and SolowayE.1990. “The Relationship of Expert-System Scored Constrained Free-Response Items to Multiple-Choice and Open-Ended Items,”Applied Psychological Measurement, 14: 151–162.
6.
BirenbaumM., and TatsuokaK. K.1987. “Open-Ended versus Multiple-Choice Response Formats—It Does Make a Difference for Diagnostic Purposes,”Applied Psychological Measurement, 11: 385–395.
7.
BraceyG. W.1991. “Why Can't They Be Like We Were?”Phi Delta Kappan, 73: 104–117.
8.
BursteinL.1991. “Performance Assessment for Accountability Purposes: Taking the Plunge and Assessing the Consequences,” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
9.
Congressional Budget Office.1986. Trends in Educational Achievement.Washington, DC: Congress of the United States.
10.
HooverH. D.Personal communication, October 23, 1990.
11.
MehrensW.1991. “Using Performance Assessment for Accountability Purposes: Some Problems,” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
12.
1991. The Oregonian (April 26): A16.
13.
SlavinR.1989. “PET and the Pendulum: Faddism in Education and How to Stop It,”Phi Delta Kappan, 70: 750–758.
14.
U.S. Department of Education.1991. America 2000: An Education Strategy. ED/OS91–13, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.