Restricted accessArticle commentaryFirst published online 2021-4
Commentary on “Validation Methods for Aggregate-Level Test Scale Linking: A Case Study Mapping School District Test Score Distributions to a Common Scale”
In this commentary, I share my perspective on the goals of assessments in general, on linking assessments that were developed according to different specifications and for different purposes, and I propose several considerations for the authors and the readers. This brief commentary is structured around three perspectives (1) the context of this research, (2) the methodology proposed here, and (3) the consequences for applied research.
BraunH.QianJ. (2007). An enhanced method for mapping state standards onto the NAEP scale. In DoransN. J.PommerichM.HollandP. W. (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales. Statistics for social and behavioral sciences (pp. 313–338). Springer.
2.
FeuerM. J.HollandP. W.GreenB. F.BertenthalM. W.HemphillF. C. (1999). Uncommon measures: Equivalence and linkage among educational tests. National Academy Press.
3.
KellH. J.LangJ. (2018). The great debate: General ability and specific abilities in the prediction of important outcomes. Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030039
4.
KoretzD. (2007). Using aggregate-level linkages for estimation and validation: Comments on Thissen and Braun & Qian. In DoransN. J.PommerichM.HollandP. W. (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 339–353). Springer.
5.
LockwoodJ. R.CastellanoK. E.ShearB. R. (2018). Flexible Bayesian models for inferences from coarsened, group-level achievement data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 43(6), 663–692.
6.
SaviA. O.MarsmanM.van der MaasH. L.MarisG. K. (2019). The wiring of intelligence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1034–1061.
7.
ThissenD. (2007). Linking assessments based on aggregate reporting: Background and issues. In DoransN. J.PommerichM.HollandP. W. (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 287–312). Springer.
8.
ThissenD. (2012). Validity issues involved in cross-grade statements about NAEP results (NAEP Validity Studies Panel). National Center for Education Statistics.
9.
van der MaasH. L. J.DolanC. V.GrasmanR. P. P. P.WichertsJ. M.HuizengaH. M.RaijmakersM. E. J. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113, 842–861. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.113.4.842
