Valuing Educational Measurement

被引:20
作者
Sireci, Stephen G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003 USA
关键词
history of testing; psychometrics; standardization; test bias; validity; values; VALIDITY; BIAS;
D O I
10.1111/emip.12415
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
The community of educational measurement researchers and practitioners has made many positive contributions to education, but has also become complacent and lost the public trust. In this article, reasons for the lack of public trust in educational testing are described, and core values for educational measurement are proposed. Reasons for distrust of educational measurement include hypocritical practices that conflict with our professional standards, a biased and selected presentation of the history of testing, and inattention to social problems associated with educational measurement. The five core values proposed to help educational measurement serve education are: (a) everyone is capable of learning; (b) there are no differences in the capacity to learn across groups defined by race, ethnicity, or sex; (c) all educational tests are fallible to some degree; (d) educational tests can provide valuable information to improve student learning and certify competence; and (e) all uses of educational test scores must be sufficiently justified by validity evidence. The importance of these core values for improving the science and practice of educational measurement to benefit society is discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:7 / 16
页数:10
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]  
Abedi J., 2013, Accommodations for English language learners and students with disabilities: A research-based decision algorithm
[2]  
Ackerman C., 2020, What is Positive Psychology Why is It Important?
[3]  
American Educational Research Association American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education ., 2014, STANDARDS ED PSYCHOL
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2000, AERA position statement on high-stakes testing in pre-K-12 education
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2020, ACT Technical Manual
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2006, AUDACITY HOPE THOUGH
[7]  
[Anonymous], 1916, The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale, DOI DOI 10.1037/10014-000
[8]  
Bennett R.E., 2016, Opt out: An examination of issues, DOI DOI 10.1002/ETS2.12101
[9]  
Betebenner D., 2016, Precision, interpretability utility of SGPs: A response to why we should abandon student growth percentiles
[10]  
Briggs D.C., 2014, RES REPORT