Rethinking 'Standardization' for NAEP to Increase Equity and Access. Technical Report #2510
Saved in:
| Title: | Rethinking 'Standardization' for NAEP to Increase Equity and Access. Technical Report #2510 |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Gerald Tindal, University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching (BRT) |
| Source: | Behavioral Research and Teaching. 2025. |
| Availability: | Behavioral Research and Teaching. 175 Lokey Education 5262 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. Tel: 541-346-3535; Fax: 541-346-5689; Web site: http://www.brtprojects.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 65 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | National Competency Tests, Academic Standards, Equal Education, Access to Education, Educational Testing, Psychological Testing, Testing Accommodations, Students with Disabilities, English Learners, Adaptive Testing, Data Collection, Test Format |
| Assessment and Survey Identifiers: | National Assessment of Educational Progress |
| Abstract: | The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what students in the United States know and can do in various subjects. NAEP first encountered tensions between standardization and inclusion in the mid-1990s after the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) in 1975 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. A second challenge related to standardization arose in the early 2000s as NAEP began new testing methods and question types that reflected the growing use of technology in education. NAEP is currently facing a third challenge related to standardization as it considers adaptations to administration. The focus of this paper is to discuss research and possible adaptations for NAEP in the setting, administration, and scoring by extending Sireci's (2020) perspective on standardization: "In educational testing, 'students' are the most important part of the measurement process, not the measure itself, or the measurement scale" (p. 100). With this orientation, the primary goal is to better understand testing conditions and how they interact with student characteristics, which may require flexibility. In Sireci's examples, culturally responsive assessments allow students to rely on their funds of knowledge through translanguaging (e.g., bilingual test delivery systems). Other illustrations address flexibility in the testing environment that allow students to take the test using their own equipment (e.g., computers, devices, and software), selecting their own passages or writing prompts, and adapting the language for taking tests. In this paper, test adaptations are examined that might allow more flexibility in NAEP test administration, citing relevant research and current practices to test adaptations. This paper has seven major sections: (1) Defining test adaptations, both within the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; hereafter "Standards" (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014) and as practiced within the NAEP program: accommodations, designated supports, and universal designs; (2) Summaries of the research previously conducted on a particular type of test adaptation, covering the extensive research on accommodations, both specific to NAEP and in general, as relevant to large-scale testing programs to establish a more expansive view of accommodations as measured by the significance of difference and consistency of outcomes within and across performance levels; (3) Focus to an even broader and more practical view of test adaptations by referencing state policies and practices as well as the consistency of adaptations across testing platforms; (4) Understand test adaptations for students beyond labels and categorical characteristics to understand their impact. This issue is critical, given the common lament by researchers that student samples often are only vaguely described; and (5) Speculations beyond research and practice, considering both function and format of the process, with two specific explications. An example in writing focuses on constructs and applies this logic to the content and constructs of reading. Three specific questions are posed for defining test adaptations, emphasizing universality for improving equity and access to a more diverse population of students. Within each section, recommendations are offered that NAEP may consider that provide greater flexibility in administration and measurement in the service of increasing equity and access; these recommendations are preceded by the abbreviation 'Rx.' Finally, a summary of these recommendations is presented, along with suggestions for future research. |
| Abstractor: | ERIC |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | ED679444 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what students in the United States know and can do in various subjects. NAEP first encountered tensions between standardization and inclusion in the mid-1990s after the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) in 1975 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. A second challenge related to standardization arose in the early 2000s as NAEP began new testing methods and question types that reflected the growing use of technology in education. NAEP is currently facing a third challenge related to standardization as it considers adaptations to administration. The focus of this paper is to discuss research and possible adaptations for NAEP in the setting, administration, and scoring by extending Sireci's (2020) perspective on standardization: "In educational testing, 'students' are the most important part of the measurement process, not the measure itself, or the measurement scale" (p. 100). With this orientation, the primary goal is to better understand testing conditions and how they interact with student characteristics, which may require flexibility. In Sireci's examples, culturally responsive assessments allow students to rely on their funds of knowledge through translanguaging (e.g., bilingual test delivery systems). Other illustrations address flexibility in the testing environment that allow students to take the test using their own equipment (e.g., computers, devices, and software), selecting their own passages or writing prompts, and adapting the language for taking tests. In this paper, test adaptations are examined that might allow more flexibility in NAEP test administration, citing relevant research and current practices to test adaptations. This paper has seven major sections: (1) Defining test adaptations, both within the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; hereafter "Standards" (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014) and as practiced within the NAEP program: accommodations, designated supports, and universal designs; (2) Summaries of the research previously conducted on a particular type of test adaptation, covering the extensive research on accommodations, both specific to NAEP and in general, as relevant to large-scale testing programs to establish a more expansive view of accommodations as measured by the significance of difference and consistency of outcomes within and across performance levels; (3) Focus to an even broader and more practical view of test adaptations by referencing state policies and practices as well as the consistency of adaptations across testing platforms; (4) Understand test adaptations for students beyond labels and categorical characteristics to understand their impact. This issue is critical, given the common lament by researchers that student samples often are only vaguely described; and (5) Speculations beyond research and practice, considering both function and format of the process, with two specific explications. An example in writing focuses on constructs and applies this logic to the content and constructs of reading. Three specific questions are posed for defining test adaptations, emphasizing universality for improving equity and access to a more diverse population of students. Within each section, recommendations are offered that NAEP may consider that provide greater flexibility in administration and measurement in the service of increasing equity and access; these recommendations are preceded by the abbreviation 'Rx.' Finally, a summary of these recommendations is presented, along with suggestions for future research. |
|---|
