Summary
This paper is adapted from an invited address delivered by Professor Stout and a symposium presentation delivered by Dr. DiBello at the 2001 International Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Osaka, Japan. This first IMPS meeting to be held in Japan was an auspicious occasion for bringing together statisticians and psychometricians from Japan with their North American and European colleagues. It provided an important forum for discussing new opportunities for assessment in the twenty-first century that result from a fortuitous conjunction of heightened public attention to school effectiveness and new psychometric methods that allow the practical operationalization of more complex cognitive models. In this paper we recall the term formative assessment as it is used in education, and define a class of scoring procedures called student profile scoring. We describe the formative aspects of the mostly summative US No Child Left Behind legislation. We outline the simple cognitive modeling that is reflected in the reparameterized unified model. We close with a call to psychometricians for a paradigm shift that moves the testing industry beyond an almost exclusive focus on low dimensional, data reductionist methods to include student profile scoring based on richer, substantively-grounded models.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Black PJ, Wiliam D (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), 139–148
Black PJ, Harrison C, Lee C, Marshall B, Dylan W (2002) Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. London, UK: King’s College London Department of Education and Professional Studies
DiBello L, Stout W, Roussos L (1995) Unified cognitive/psychometric diagnostic assessment likelihood-based classification techniques. In: Nichols P, Chipman S, Brennen R (eds) Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. 361–389
DiBello L, Crone C, Narcowich M (2001) Descriptive score reporting on a national standardized test. NCME presentation, Seattle, WA
Doignon JP, Falmagne JC (1985) Spaces for the assessment of knowledge. International Journal of Man Machine Studies 23: 175–196
Embretson SE (1998) A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods 3: 380–396
Fischer GH (1973) The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica 37: 359–374
Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist 18: 519–521
Hartz, SM (2002) A bayesian framework for the Unified Model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality. PhD Thesis: U Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Junker BW, Sijtsma K (2001) Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement 25 (3): 258–272
Maris E (1999) Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64 (2): 187–212
Martin J, Van Lehn K (1995) A Bayesian approach to cognitive assessment. In: Nichols P, Chipman S, Brennen R (eds) Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. pp 141–166
Mislevy RJ (1997)Probability-based inference in cognitive diagnosis. In Nichols P, Chipman S, Brennan R (eds) Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, pp 43–71
Mislevy RJ, Almond RG, Yan D, Steinberg LS (1999). Bayes nets in educational assessment: Where do the numbers come from? In: Laskey KB, Prade H (eds) Proc 15th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, pp 437–446
Nichols P, Chipman S, Brennen R (1995) Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum
Pellegrino JW, Chudowski N, Glaser R (2001) Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Reckase MD (1997) The past and future of multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement 21 (1): 25–36
Samejima F (1995) A cognitive diagnosis method using latent trait models: Competency space approach and its relationship with DiBello and Stout’s unified cognitive-psychometric diagnosis model. In: Nichols P, Chipman S, Brennen R (eds) Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum, pp 391–410
Tatsuoka KK (1985) A probabilistic model for diagnosing misconceptions by the pattern classification approach. J Educational Statistics 10: 55–73
Tatamoka KK (1990) Toward an integration of item-response theory and cognitive error diagnosis. In Frederiksen N, Glaser R, Lesgold A, Shafto MG (eds) Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 453–488
Tatsuoka KK (1995) Architecture of knowledge structures and cognitive diagnosis: statistical pattern recognition and classification approach. In: Nichols P, Chipman S, Brennen R (eds) Cognitively diagnostic assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. pp 327–359
US Government (2001) No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Federal legislation
VanEssen T (2001) Developing skills, descriptions and steps for improvement on a national standardized test. NCME presentation. Seattle, WA
Wiley DE, Haertel EH (1996). Extended assessment tasks: Purposes, definitions, scoring, and accuracy. In Kane MB, Mitchell R (eds), Implementing performance assessments: Promises, problems, and challenges. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Wiliam D, Black PJ (1996) Meanings and consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22 (5), 537–548
Wiliam D (2000, November) Integrating summative and formative functions of assessment. Paper presented at First annual conference of the Association for Educational Assessment-Europe held at Prague, Czech Republic
Wilson M, Draney K (1997) Developing maps for student progress in the SEPUP Assessment System. U California, Berkeley: BEAR Report Series, SA-97–2
Yamamoto K (1989) HYBRID model of IRT and latent class models. Research Report. RR-89–41. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
Yamamoto K (1991) Performance modeling that integrates latent trait and class theory. Research Report. RR-91–01. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Japan
About this paper
Cite this paper
DiBello, L.V., Stout, W. (2003). Student Profile Scoring for Formative Assessment. In: Yanai, H., Okada, A., Shigemasu, K., Kano, Y., Meulman, J.J. (eds) New Developments in Psychometrics. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-66996-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-66996-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-66998-2
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-66996-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive