REFERENCES
- Adjei, S., Selent, D., Heffernan, N., Pardos, Z., Broaddus, A., & Kingston, N. (2014). Refining learning maps with data fitting techniques: Searching for better fitting learning maps. The 2014 Proceedings of the International Educational Data Mining Society, London, UK.
- Briggs, D. C., & Weeks, J. P. (2009). The impact of vertical scaling decisions on growth interpretations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4), 3–14. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00158.x
- Clark, A., Kingston, N., Templin, J., & Pardos, Z. (2014). Summary of results from the fall 2013 pilot administration of the Dynamic Learning Maps™ Alternate Assessment System ( Technical Report No. 14-01). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation.
- Embretson, S. E., & Daniel, R. C. (2008). Understanding and quantifying cognitive complexity level in mathematical problem solving items. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(3), 328–344.
- Gierl, M. J., & Lai, H. (2012). The role of item models in automatic item generation. International Journal of Testing, 12(3), 273–298. doi:10.1080/15305058.2011.635830
- Hattie, J. (2009). Visibly learning from reports: The validity of score reports. Online Educational Research Journal. Retrieved from http://www.oerj.org/View?action=viewPDF&paper=6
- Huang, H.-Y., Wang, W.-C., Chen, P.-H., & Su, C.-M. (2013). Higher-order item response models for hierarchical latent traits. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(8), 619–637.
- Kingston, N. M., Kahl, S. R., Sweeney, K., & Bay, L. (2001). Setting performance standards using the Body of Work method. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Standard setting: Concepts, methods, and perspectives ( pp. 219–248). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Martineau, J. A., & Zeng, J. (2015). Borrowing the strength of unidimensional scaling to produce multidimensional educational effectiveness profiles. In R. W. Lissitz & H. Jiao (Eds.), Value added modeling and growth modeling with particular application to teacher and school effectiveness ( pp. 103–138). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
- Plake, B. S., Hambleton, R. K., & Jaeger, R. M. (1997). A new standard-setting method for performance assessments: The dominant profile judgment method and some field-test results. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(3), 400–411. doi:10.1177/0013164497057003002
- Sinharay, S., & Johnson, M. S. (2008). Use of item models in a large-scale admissions test: A case study. International Journal of Testing, 8(3), 209–236. doi:10.1080/15305050802262019
- Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Wyse, A. E. (2013). Construct maps as a foundation for standard setting. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11(4), 139–170.
- Wyse, A. E., Bunch, M. B., Deville, C., & Viger, S. G. (2014). A body of work standard-setting method with construct maps. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(2), 236–262. doi:10.1177/0013164413502037
- Zenisky, A., & Hambleton, R. (2012). Developing test score reports that work: The process and best practices for effective communication. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31(2), 21–26. doi:10.1111/emip.2012.31.issue-2