View in EDS

A Framework for Describing Comparability between Alternative Assessments

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
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
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1293916
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1293916
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Framework for Describing Comparability between Alternative Assessments
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shaw%2C+Stuart%22">Shaw, Stuart</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Crisp%2C+Victoria%22">Crisp, Victoria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hughes%2C+Sarah%22">Hughes, Sarah</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Research+Matters%22"><i>Research Matters</i></searchLink>. Spr 2020 (29):17-22.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: 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/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 6
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alternative+Assessment%22">Alternative Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Criteria%22">Evaluation Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1755-6031
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1293916
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1293916
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 6
        StartPage: 17
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Alternative Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Framework for Describing Comparability between Alternative Assessments
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shaw, Stuart
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Crisp, Victoria
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hughes, Sarah
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1755-6031
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 29
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Research Matters
              Type: main
ResultId 1