Linking Not-Quite-Vertical Scales Through Multidimensional Item Response Theory

References

• Betebenner, D. (2009). Norm-and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4), 42–51. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00161.x
   Google Scholar
• Boughton, K. A., Lorié, W., & Yao, L. (2005, April). A multidimensional multi-group IRT model for vertical scales with complex test structure: An empirical evaluation of student growth using real data. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, QC.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs, D. C., & Peck, F. A. (2015). Using learning progressions to design vertical scales that support coherent inferences about student growth. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 13(2), 75–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Cai, L. (2010). A two-tier full-information item factor analysis model with applications. Psychometrika, 75(4), 581–612. doi:10.1007/s11336-010-9178-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, L. (2017). FlexMIRT®: Flexible multilevel item factor analysis and test scoring [Computer software]. Seattle, WA: Vector Psychometric Group, LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, H. G., Boals, T., Wilmes, C., & Santos, M. (2007). Issues in the development of annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for WIDA Consortium states. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from https://wcer.wisc.edu/docs/working-papers/Working_Paper_No_2008_02.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014). English language proficiency standards with correspondences to K-12 English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science practices, K-12 ELA standards, and 6-12 literacy standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/Final%204_30%20ELPA21%20Standards%281%29.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ferrara, S., Johnson, E., & Chen, W. H. (2005). Vertically articulated performance standards: Logic, procedures, and likely classification accuracy. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(1), 35–59. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1801_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson, B. A., & Béguin, A. A. (2002). Obtaining a common scale for item response theory item parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the common-item equating design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26(1), 3–24. doi:10.1177/0146621602026001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lei, P. W., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Effects of vertical scaling methods on linear growth estimation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(1), 21–39. doi:10.1177/0146621611425171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., & Lissitz, R. W. (2012). Exploring the full-information bifactor model in vertical scaling with construct shift. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36(1), 3–20. doi:10.1177/0146621611432864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linquanti, R., & Hakuta, K. (2012). How next-generation standards and assessments can foster success for California’s English learners ( Policy Brief 12-1). Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. Retrieved from http://www.edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/pace_pr_07.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lissitz, R. W., & Huynh, H. (2003). Vertical equating for state assessments: Issues and solutions in determination of adequate yearly progress and school accountability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(10), 1–6. Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=10/
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, S., & Dadey, N. (2017). Considering English language proficiency within systems of accountability under Every Student Succeeds Act. Dover, NH: Center for Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/sites/default/files/publications/Considerations%20for%20ELP%20indicator%20in%20ESSA_032717.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Martineau, J. A. (2006). Distorting value added: The use of longitudinal, vertically scaled student achievement data for growth-based, value-added accountability. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(1), 35–62. doi:10.3102/10769986031001035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Cai, L. (2006). A cautionary note on using G2(dif) to assess relative model fit in categorical data analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(1), 55–64. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4101_4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P. (2000). A basis for multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(2), 99–114. doi:10.1177/01466210022031552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, R. H. (1997). Value-added indicators of school performance: A primer. Economics of Education Review, 16(3), 283–301. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(96)00081-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monroe, S., & Cai, L. (2015). Examining the reliability of student growth percentiles using multidimensional IRT. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(4), 21–30. doi:10.1111/emip.12092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patz, R. J., & Yao, L. (2007). Methods and models for vertical scaling. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 253–272). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reckase, M. D. (2009). Multidimensional item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores (Psychometric Monographs No. 17). Richmond, VA: Psychometric Society.
   Google Scholar
• Schafer, W. D. (2006). Growth scales as an alternative to vertical scales. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 11(4), 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=11&n=4
   Google Scholar
• Thissen, D., Liu, Y., Magnus, B., & Quinn, H. (2015). Extending the use of multidimensional IRT calibration as projection: Many-to-one linking and linear computation of projected scores. In L. A. Van Der Ark, D. M. Bolt, W.-C. Wang, J. A. Douglas, & S.-M. Chow (Eds.), Quantitative psychology research (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Thissen, D., Varni, J. W., Stucky, B. D., Liu, Y., Irwin, D. E., & DeWalt, D. A. (2011). Using the PedsQL™ 3.0 asthma module to obtain scores comparable with those of the PROMIS pediatric asthma impact scale (PAIS). Quality of Life Research, 20(9), 1497–1505. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9874-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurstone, L. L. (1925). A method of scaling psychological and educational tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 16(7), 433–451. doi:10.1037/h0073357
   Google Scholar
• Tong, Y., & Kolen, M. J. (2007). Comparisons of methodologies and results in vertical scaling for educational achievement tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(2), 227–253. doi:10.1080/08957340701301207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, M. (2010). Measurement, sampling, and equating errors in large-scale assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(4), 15–27. doi:10.1111/emip.2010.29.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Yen, W. M. (2007). Vertical scaling and No Child Left Behind. In N. J. Dorans, M. Pommerich, & P. W. Holland (Eds.), Linking and aligning scores and scales (pp. 273–283). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Yen, W. M., & Burket, G. R. (1997). Comparison of item response theory and Thurstone methods of vertical scaling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(4), 293–313. doi:10.1111/jedm.1997.34.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar