A Framework for Describing Comparability between Alternative Assessments
Saved in:
| Title: | A Framework for Describing Comparability between Alternative Assessments |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Shaw, Stuart, Crisp, Victoria, Hughes, Sarah |
| Source: | Research Matters. Spr 2020 (29):17-22. |
| Availability: | University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (Cambridge Assessment). The Triangle Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom CB2 8EA. Tel: +44-1223-553311; e-mail: info@cambridgeassessment.org.uk; Web site: https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/our-research/all-published-resources/research-matters/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 6 |
| Publication Date: | 2020 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Alternative Assessment, Comparative Analysis, Standards, Evaluation Criteria, Test Construction |
| ISSN: | 1755-6031 |
| Abstract: | The credibility of an Awarding Organisation's products is partly reliant upon the claims it makes about its assessments and on the evidence it can provide to support such claims. Some such claims relate to comparability. For example, for syllabuses with options, such as the choice to conduct coursework or to take an alternative exam testing similar skills, there is a claim that overall candidates' results are comparable regardless of the choice made. This article describes the development and piloting of a framework that can be used, concurrently or retrospectively, to evaluate the comparability between different assessments that act as alternatives. The framework is structured around four types of assessment standards and is accompanied by a recording form for capturing declared comparability intentions and for evaluating how well these intentions have been achieved. The framework and recording form together are intended to: (1) provide a structure for considering comparability in terms of four established assessment standards; (2) afford an opportunity for test developers to consider their intentions with respect to the comparability claims they wish to make; (3) provide a list of factors (within each assessment standard) that are likely to contribute to the comparability of two alternative assessments; (4) give a structure for collecting a body of relevant information against these factors; and (5) prompt an evaluation (on the part of the test developer) of how effectively the claims have been met. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2021 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1293916 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | The credibility of an Awarding Organisation's products is partly reliant upon the claims it makes about its assessments and on the evidence it can provide to support such claims. Some such claims relate to comparability. For example, for syllabuses with options, such as the choice to conduct coursework or to take an alternative exam testing similar skills, there is a claim that overall candidates' results are comparable regardless of the choice made. This article describes the development and piloting of a framework that can be used, concurrently or retrospectively, to evaluate the comparability between different assessments that act as alternatives. The framework is structured around four types of assessment standards and is accompanied by a recording form for capturing declared comparability intentions and for evaluating how well these intentions have been achieved. The framework and recording form together are intended to: (1) provide a structure for considering comparability in terms of four established assessment standards; (2) afford an opportunity for test developers to consider their intentions with respect to the comparability claims they wish to make; (3) provide a list of factors (within each assessment standard) that are likely to contribute to the comparability of two alternative assessments; (4) give a structure for collecting a body of relevant information against these factors; and (5) prompt an evaluation (on the part of the test developer) of how effectively the claims have been met. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1755-6031 |
