Examining the Use and Construct Fidelity of Technology-Enhanced Items Employed by K-12 Testing Programs

References

• Airasian, P. (1994). Classroom assessment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E. (1993). On the meaning of constructed response. In R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement: Issues in constructed response, performance testing, and portfolio assessment (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E. (2002). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 1(1). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1667
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E., Morely, M., & Quardt, D. (1998). Three response types for broadening the conception of mathematical problem solving in computerized-adaptive tests (Research Report 98–45). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, R. E., & Rock, D. A. (1993). Generalizability, validity, and examinee perceptions of a computer-delivered formulating-hypotheses test (ETS Research Report 93–46). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, W. (2017). Developing a strategy for using technology-enhanced items in large-scale standardized tests. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 22(1). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=22&n=1
   Google Scholar
• Drasgow, F., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (1999). Innovations in computerized assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Ebel, R. L. (1951). Writing the test item. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 185–249). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enright, M. K., Rock, D. A., & Bennett, R. E. (1998). Improving measurement for graduate admissions. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35(3), 250–267. doi:10.1111/jedm.1998.35.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florida Department of Education. (2010). Race to the top assessment program application for new grants. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Smarter-Balanced-RttT-Application.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Haladyna, T. A., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hawkes, H. E., Lindquist, E. F., & Mann, C. R. (1936). The construction and use of achievement examinations: A manual for secondary school teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hochstetter, A., Page, A., Chang, Y., & Cappaert, K. (2018). Validity inferences for different types of technology-enhanced items. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2002). IMS question and test interoperability: An overview final specification version 1.2. Retrieved from http://www.imsglobal.org/question/qtiv1p2/imsqti_oviewv1p2.html.
   Google Scholar
• IMS Global Learning Consortium. (2012). IMS question and test interoperability: An overview version 2.1 final. Retrieved from http://www.imsglobal.org/question/qtiv2p1/imsqti_oviewv2p1.html
   Google Scholar
• Jodoin, M. G. (2003). Measurement efficiency of innovative item formats in computer‐based testing. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(1), 1–15. doi:10.1111/jedm.2003.40.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2006). Performance assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 387–431). Westport, CT: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Measured Progress/ETS Collaborative. (2012). Smarter balanced assessment consortium: Technology-enhanced items. Retrieved from https://www.measuredprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SBAC-Technology-Enhanced-Items-Guidelines.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments, CSE technical report 597. Los Angles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
   Google Scholar
• O’Leary, M., Scully, D., Karakolidis, A., & Pisia, V. (2018). The state-of-the-art in digital technology-based assessment. European Journal of Education, 53(2), 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parshall, C. G., & Harmes, J. C. (2014). Improving the quality of innovative item types: Four tasks for design and development. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 10(1), 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, M. C., & Haladyna, T. M. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M. (2006). Technology and assessment: The tale of two perspectives. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M. (2016). A Framework for Examining the Utility of Technology-enhanced Items. Journal of applied testing technology 17(1), 20–32. Retrieved from http://www.jattjournal.com/index.php/atp/article/view/89189/67798
   Google Scholar
• Scalise, K. (2012, May). Using technology to assess hard-to-measure constructs in the common core state standards and to expand accessibility. In ETS invitational research symposium on technology enhanced assessments, Princeton, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Scalise, K., & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based assessment in E-learning: A framework for constructing “intermediate constraint” questions and tasks for technology platforms. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(6). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1653/1495
   Google Scholar
• Sireci, S. G., & Zenisky, A. L. (2006). Innovative item formats in computer-based testing: In pursuit of improved construct representation. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 329–348). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Washington State. (2010). Race to the top assessment program application for new grants. Retrieved from http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Smarter-Balanced-RttT-Application.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7–25. doi:10.1080/08957340709336728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar