			Home About us Contact

High-stakes Assessments (high-stake + assessment)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	40%

Selected Abstracts

Assessment Validation in the Context of High-Stakes Assessment

EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT: ISSUES AND PRACTICE, Issue 1 2002
Katherine Ryan
Including the perspectives of stakeholder groups (e.g., teachers, parents) can improve the validity of high-stakes assessment interpretations and uses. How stakeholder groups view high-stakes assessments and their uses may differ significantly from state-level policy officials. The views of these stakeholders can contribute to identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the intended assessment interpretations and uses. This article proposes a process approach to validity that addresses assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment. The process approach includes a test evaluator or validator who considers the perspectives of five stakeholder groups at four different stages of assessment maturity in relationship to six aspects of construct validity. The tasks of the test evaluator and how stakeholders' views might be incorporated are illustrated at each stage of assessment maturity. How the test evaluator might make judgments about the merit of high-stakes assessment interpretations and uses is discussed. [source]

Summative Assessment in Medicine: The Promise of Simulation for High-stakes Evaluation

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 11 2008
John R. Boulet PhD
Abstract Throughout their careers, physicians are exposed to a wide array of assessments, including those aimed at evaluating knowledge, clinical skills, and clinical decision-making. While many of these assessments are used as part of formative evaluation activities, others are employed to establish competence and, as a byproduct, to promote patient safety. In the past 10 years, simulations have been successfully incorporated in a number of high-stakes physician certification and licensure exams. In developing these simulation-based assessments, testing organizations were able to promote novel test administration protocols, build enhanced assessment rubrics, advance sophisticated scoring and equating algorithms, and promote innovative standard-setting methods. Moreover, numerous studies have been conducted to identify potential threats to the validity of test score interpretations. As simulation technology expands and new simulators are invented, this groundbreaking work can serve as a basis for organizations to build or expand their summative assessment activities. Although there will continue to be logistical and psychometric problems, many of which will be specialty- or simulator-specific, past experience with performance-based assessments suggests that most challenges can be addressed through focused research. Simulation, whether it involves standardized patients (SPs), computerized case management scenarios, part-task trainers, electromechanical mannequins, or a combination of these methods, holds great promise for high-stakes assessment. [source]

Validity of High-Stakes Assessment: Are Students Engaged in Complex Thinking?

EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT: ISSUES AND PRACTICE, Issue 3 2004
Suzanne Lane
The validity of high-stakes assessments and accountability systems is discussed in relation to the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The extent to which content standards and assessments are cognitively rich, the challenges in setting performance standards, and the impact of high-stakes assessments on instruction and student learning are addressed. The article argues for quality content standards, cognitively rich assessments, and a cohesive, balanced assessment system. [source]

Assessment Validation in the Context of High-Stakes Assessment

Impact of item-writing flaws in multiple-choice questions on student achievement in high-stakes nursing assessments

MEDICAL EDUCATION, Issue 2 2008
Marie Tarrant
Context, Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are frequently used to assess students in health science disciplines. However, few educators have formal instruction in writing MCQs and MCQ items often have item-writing flaws. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of item-writing flaws on student achievement in high-stakes assessments in a nursing programme in an English-language university in Hong Kong. Methods, From a larger sample, we selected 10 summative test papers that were administered to undergraduate nursing students in 1 nursing department. All test items were reviewed for item-writing flaws by a 4-person consensus panel. Items were classified as ,flawed' if they contained , 1 flaw. Items not containing item-writing violations were classified as ,standard'. For each paper, 2 separate scales were computed: a total scale which reflected the characteristics of the assessment as administered and a standard scale which reflected the characteristics of a hypothetical assessment including only unflawed items. Results, The proportion of flawed items on the 10 test papers ranged from 28,75%; 47.3% of all items were flawed. Fewer examinees passed the standard scale than the total scale (748 [90.6%] versus 779 [94.3%]). Conversely, the proportion of examinees obtaining a score , 80% was higher on the standard scale than the total scale (173 [20.9%] versus 120 [14.5%]). Conclusions, Flawed MCQ items were common in high-stakes nursing assessments but did not disadvantage borderline students, as has been previously demonstrated. Conversely, high-achieving students were more likely than borderline students to be penalised by flawed items. [source]