Is Online a Better Baseline? Comparing the Predictive Validity of Computer- and Paper-Based Tests. Working Paper No. 241-0820

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Is Online a Better Baseline? Comparing the Predictive Validity of Computer- and Paper-Based Tests. Working Paper No. 241-0820
Language: English
Authors: Backes, Ben, Cowan, James, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) at American Institutes for Research
Source: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER). 2020.
Availability: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Washington, DC 20007. Tel: 202-403-5796; Fax: 202-403-6783; e-mail: info@caldercenter.org; Web site: https://caldercenter.org
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2020
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305A170119
Document Type: Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Predictive Validity, Test Validity, Computer Assisted Testing, Comparative Analysis, Standardized Tests, Achievement Tests, Elementary School Students, Middle School Students
Geographic Terms: Massachusetts
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
Abstract: Prior work has documented a substantial penalty associated with taking the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) online relative to on paper (Backes & Cowan, 2019). However, this penalty does not necessarily make online tests less useful. For example, it could be the case that computer literacy skills are correlated with students' future ability to navigate high school coursework, and thus more predictive of later outcomes. Using a statewide implementation of PARCC in Massachusetts, we test the relative predictive validity of online and paper tests. We are unable to detect a difference between the two and in most cases can rule out even modest differences. Finally, we estimate mode effects for the new Massachusetts statewide assessment. In contrast to the first years of PARCC implementation, we find very small mode effects, showing that it is possible to implement online assessments at scale without large online penalties.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: ED609698
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:Prior work has documented a substantial penalty associated with taking the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) online relative to on paper (Backes & Cowan, 2019). However, this penalty does not necessarily make online tests less useful. For example, it could be the case that computer literacy skills are correlated with students' future ability to navigate high school coursework, and thus more predictive of later outcomes. Using a statewide implementation of PARCC in Massachusetts, we test the relative predictive validity of online and paper tests. We are unable to detect a difference between the two and in most cases can rule out even modest differences. Finally, we estimate mode effects for the new Massachusetts statewide assessment. In contrast to the first years of PARCC implementation, we find very small mode effects, showing that it is possible to implement online assessments at scale without large online penalties.