Chapter 7
Formal Group Assessment: Focus on
Accountability
Introduction
• What Is the Context for Formal, Standardized Assessment?
• Characteristics for Formal, Standardized Testing
• Group Achievement Tests for Instructional Planning and Progress
Monitoring
• High-Stakes Testing
• Formal Group Achievement Testing for Accountability
• The NAEP and the NAAL
• What do Group Norm-referenced Measures of Reading Look Like?
• Special Considerations for Formal, Group Assessment of Adult and
English Language Learners
What Is the Context for Formal,
Standardized Assessment?
Tips for Administering and Scoring Formal
and Group Tests
• Refer to Text Box 6.5 for tips.
• Follow scripted directions in manual to prevent error.
• Refer to Figure 6.1 to understand how various scores relate to
each other on the “normal curve.”
• Group formal tests can be useful for gross progress
monitoring, limited instructional planning, screening and
whole class comparisons.
• Primary purpose is accountability.
Figure 6.1
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.2
Group Achievement Tests for
Instructional Planning and Progress
Monitoring
Brief Assessments of Oral Reading Fluency
• Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency-2
• Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency-2
• Can be individually or group administered (PRO-ED)
Figure 7.4
Group Reading Tests: Some Examples
• Gates-MacGinitie, 4th Edition (Riverside)
• Gray Silent Reading Test (PRO-ED)
• Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Riverside)
Figure 7.5
Figure 7.6
Test of Adult Basic Education
• Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE, 2014)
• TABE is commonly used in adult education settings across the
U.S. and provides a measure of reading.
• Teachers are encouraged to first administer a locator test to
help determine the most appropriate level of administration for
entering students.
High-Stakes Testing
How did high-stakes testing originate?
• 1946: U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for an assessment
system to ensure that schools prepared well-qualified workers
for the post-World War II era (Fine, 1947).
• Cold War era of 1950s through 1970s: nonflattering
international comparisons of student performance combined
with the fear of losing U.S. scientific and military superiority
fueled a frenzy of educational reform (Postlethwaite, 1985).
Origins of high-stakes testing
Two additional motivating influences:
• In late 1960s and 1970s—the interest of state governments to
provide evidence of teacher accountability
• A growing number of lawsuits brought by parents of
semiliterate graduates against school systems for not properly
educating their children
(Conley, 2005)
Guidelines for High-Stakes Testing
• Elliott, Braden, & White (2001) provide suggestions for highstakes testing:
• Tie assessment to predetermined goals
• Rely on multiple measures
• Create reliable and valid tests for purposes intended
Standards for Testing
• Table 7.1
• Sample Standards from AERA, APA and NCME’s Standards
for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014)
Should we Teach to the Test?
Popham’s Categories of Test Preparation Practices
• 1. Previous-form preparation allows students to practice test
taking with items from old out-of-print versions of a test that is
currently used.
• 2. Current-form preparation allows students to practice on
items taken directly from a currently used version of a test.
(Popham, 2002)
Popham’s Categories con’td
• 3. Generalized test-taking preparation allows simulation of
test administration using a variety of test-preparation strategies
to fit a variety of test formats (e.g., helping students schedule
time optimally, modeling good calculated guessing strategies,
and encouraging students to read the stem carefully before
looking at the options of multiple-choice questions).
Popham’s Categories cont’d
• 4. Same-format preparation allows students to practice
responding only to items that represent the content of the
actual test and mirror the format of the items from the test.
• 5. Varied-format preparation allows students to practice
responding to items that represent directly the content of the
actual test using a variety of item formats.
Popham’s Recommendations
Which of the above are appropriate (i.e., educationally defensible
and ethical)?
• #3 (Generalized test-taking preparation)
• and #5 (Varied-format preparation)
Controversies and Criticisms of
Group Testing
• Table 7.2
• External Testing Programs: Criticisms and Solutions (Payne,
2003)
High-stakes testing of students with
disabilities and English language learners
• Most take same group achievement tests as students without
disabilities and/or whose first language is English.
• Students with disabilities may have accommodations if
documented in Individual Education Plans (IEP) or Section
504 Plans.
Typical Accommodations for
Students with Disabilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(a) large print
(b) oral instructions
(c) calculators/mathematical tables
(c) flexible setting (e.g., individual versus small group versus
study carrel)
(d) visual/tactile aids
(e) multiple testing sessions (within the same day)
(f) flexible scheduling
(g) use of a scribe/recording device
Typical Accommodations
• (h) test booklet marking
• (i) oral self-reading
• Other accommodations, sometimes referred to as “special
accommodations,” include: (a) extended time; (b) read aloud
internal test instructions/items; (c) prompting, upon request;
(d) use of an interpreter; (e) use of manipulatives for math
tests; and (f) use of assistive technology.
Formal Group Achievement Testing for
Accountability
Two Well-Known Examples:
National Assessment for Educational Progress
(NAEP)
The National Assessment of Adult Literacy
(NAAL)
NAEP
• http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
• Table 7.4
• National Association of Educational Progress Performance
Descriptions
• Basic
• Proficient
• Advanced
• Grades 4, 8, 12
Trends in NAEP Performance
• National averages were 2 points higher in 2005 than in 1992 and 4 points higher in
2013 than 2005 at grade 4.
• Similar trends for students in grade 8
• Scores for 4th grade Asian/Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites
increased between 1992 and 2013. Students within all four groups improved slightly
from 2011 to 2013 and all improved significantly from 1992 to 2013
• Gains by White and Black 8th grade students parallel 4th grade; however, 8th grade
Hispanic students gained 15 points from 1992 to 2013 versus a 10 point gain for 4th
grade; 8th grade Asian/Pacific Islander students gained 12 points versus 19 points
for 4th grade.
• In spite of these gains for 8th grade, Asian/Pacific Islander students scored highest in
2013 (280 points), followed by White (276 points), Hispanic (256 points), and
Black students (250 points).
Trends in NAEP Performance
• Males seem to be closing the reading gap slowly.
• 25% and 32% of 4th grade males earned Proficient or better scores in
reading in 1992 and 2013, respectively.
• 32% and 38% of 4th grade females earned Proficient or better scores in
reading in 1992 and 2013, respectively .
• The same trend is observed for 8th grade students.
• Percentage of Proficient or Above 12th grade students decreased slightly
from 1992 to 2013.
• Consequence of more students staying in school?
Table 7.3 Achievement Level Results* from the National Assessment on Education Progress
Fourth Grade
Eighth Grade
Year
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Below
Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
1992
38
34
22
6
31
40
26
3
2011
33
34
26
8
24
42
30
3
2013
32
33
27
8
22
42
32
4
* in percentages
NAAL
• www.nces.ed.gov
• Some gains from 1993 to 2003 were noted in adults’ quantitative literacy
and document literacy.
• But in 2003:
• 30 million adults (14%) performed at Below Basic level (answered either none
or only the most simple and concrete items);
• 63 million (29%) were able to answer simple and everyday literacy-based
questions;
• 95 million (44%) were able to participate in moderately challenging literacy
activities;
• 28 million (13%) could perform complex and challenging literacy activities.
Common Core State Standards Assessment
• In 2010, as part of the Race to the Top initiative, the U.S.
Department of Education awarded $330 million to two entities
to develop valid, fair, “next generation” assessments in
English/Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics that would
yield faster results than traditional group tests:
• Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
(PARCC)
• http://www.parcconline.org/
• Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
• http://www.smarterbalanced.org/
Common Core Assessments
• Both have summative and formative assessments
• Goal is to assess via computer technology
• Smarter Balanced assessments are computer-adaptive
What do Group Norm-Referenced
Measures of Reading Look Like?
Typical Group Achievement Test
• Table 7.5
• Scope and Sequence Chart from Stanford Achievement Test
Figure 7.6
Figure 7.7
Assessment at a Glance:
Formal, Group Assessment
• Tables 7.6 and 7.7
• Characteristics of Formal, Group and Norm-Referenced
Assessments of Reading
• Psychometric Properties of Formal, Group, Norm-Referenced
Assessment of Reading
Special Considerations for Adults and
English Language Learners
Special Considerations for Group Assessment of Adults
• See Text Box 7.1
• Assess adult learners’ educational histories, background experiences, and
interests, as well as specific reading skills.
• For those who score below 8th grade level on the Test of Adult Basic
Education, further skill assessment is needed.
• Multiple measures will likely be needed to gain a complete assessment of
adult learners’ strengths and weaknesses.
• Ensure that tests used for adults are normed for adults.
• Adult learners may feel particularly conscious of their performance in a
group testing situation; take special care to put them at ease and ensure
confidentiality of scores.
• Refer to the Adult Reading Components website to plug in scores and get
educational recommendations for adult learners:
https://lincs.ed.gov/readingprofiles/
Special Considerations for Group Assessment of ELLs
• See Text Box 7.2.
• NCLB requires that ELL students participate in group achievement testing for
accountability purposes. Be familiar with the accommodations allowed in your state
and school district. For example, some states allow directions to be read in the
students’ native language; some allow for flexible grouping, etc.
• Prepare ELL students for group assessment by providing practice sessions. Address
their questions or concerns to relieve anxiety. (We like what one of our children’s
teachers told her class—“This test is to show if I did a good job this year as your
teacher. Just do your best and don’t worry about it.”)
• Work with bilingual and English as Second Language instructors to inform parents
about the purposes of group achievement testing to relieve anxiety and to ensure
parental support.
• Be aware of the limitations of testing students in a second language when
interpreting assessment results.
Assessment at a Glance:
Formal, Group Assessment
• Tables 7.6 and 7.7
• Characteristics of Formal, Group and Norm-Referenced
Assessments of Reading
• Psychometric Properties of Formal, Group and NormReferenced Assessments of Reading
Summary
• What is the Context for Formal, Standardized Assessment?
• Characteristics for Formal, Standardized Testing
• Group Achievement Tests for Instructional Planning and Progress
Monitoring
• High-Stakes Testing
• Formal Group Achievement Testing for Accountability
• The NAEP and the NAAL
• What do Group Norm-Referenced Measures of Reading Look Like?
• Special Considerations for Formal, Group Assessment of Adult and
English Language Learners