Exploration of Factors Affecting the Added Value of Test Subscores

References

• American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, & American Educational Research Association. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach's coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 207–230. doi:10.1177/1094428114555994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J., Schönemann, P., & McKie, D. (1965). Alpha coefficients for stratified-parallel tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(2), 291–312. doi:10.1177/001316446502500201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davenport, E. C., Jr., Davison, M. L., Liou, P.-Y., & Love, Q. U. (2015). Reliability, dimensionality, and internal consistency as defined by Cronbach: Distinct albeit related concepts. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 34, 4–9. doi:10.1111/emip.12095
   Google Scholar
• Davison, M. L., Davenport, E. C., Jr., Chang, Y.-F., Vue, K., & Su, S. (2015). Criterion-related validity: Assessing the value of subscores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 52, 263–279. doi:10.1111/jedm.12081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiBello, L. V., Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. (2007). Review of cognitive diagnostic assessment and a summary of psychometric models. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 45–79). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Gulliksen, H. (1945). The relation of item difficulty and inter-item correlation to test variance and reliability. Psychometrika, 10(2), 79–91.
   Google Scholar
• Haberman, S. J. (2008). When can subscores have value? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(2), 204–229. doi:10.3102/1076998607302636
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haladyna, T. M., & Kramer, G. A. (2004). The validity of subscores for a credentialing test. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 27(4), 349–368. doi:10.1177/0163278704270010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huff, K., & Goodman, D. P. (2007). The demand for cognitive diagnostic assessment. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 19–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Indiana Department of Education. (2016). 2015 ISTEP+ statewide results. Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/accountability/school-and-corporation-data-reports-archive
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R., & Birnbaum, A. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Oxford, UK: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D., & Michaelides, M. (2005). Setting cut scores for college placement. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-2005-9-setting-cut-scores-college-placement.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425. (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Puhan, G., Sinharay, S., Haberman, S. J., & Larkin, K. (2008). Comparison of subscores based on classical test theory methods. ETS Research Report Series, 2008(2), i–23.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing., Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. (1985). The difficulty of test items that measure more than one ability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(4), 401–412. doi:10.1177/014662168500900409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. (1997). The past and future of multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(1), 25–36. doi:10.1177/0146621697211002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sinharay, S. (2010). When can subscores be expected to have added value? Results from operational and simulated data. ETS Research Report Series, 2010(2), i–28. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2010.tb02223.x
   Google Scholar
• Sinharay, S., Haberman, S. J., & Puhan, G. (2007). Subscores based on classical test theory: To report or not to report. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(4), 21–28. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00105.x
   Google Scholar
• Sinharay, S., Puhan, G., & Haberman, S. J. (2011). An NCME instructional module on subscores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(3), 29–40. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00208.x
   Google Scholar
• Symonds, P. M. (1928). Factors influencing test reliability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(2), 73. doi:10.1037/h0071867
   Google Scholar
• Tate, R. L. (2004). Implications of multidimensionality for total score and subscore performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 17(2), 89–112. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1702_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar