MAPPING STATE STANDARDS TO THE NAEP SCALE
Abstract
This report describes the derivation and evaluation of a method for comparing the performance standards for public school students set by different states. It is based on an approach proposed by McLaughlin and associates, which constituted an innovative attempt to resolve the confusion and concern that occurs when very different proportions of students in various states are declared to have met a standard with the same label. Our method, like McLaughlin's, employs equipercentile methods to map state standards on to a common scale, that associated with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We have also derived error estimates that take into account both NAEP's complex sampling design and measurement errors. The method was applied to two data sets, and the results were qualitatively similar to those obtained by McLaughlin's method. The paper notes the superior statistical properties of the proposed method and presents evidence that supports the viability and general utility of this approach.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In 2007, Alabama's 4th grade mathematics proficiency standard corresponded to a NAEP scale score of 205, whereas Arkansas's identical proficiency standard corresponded to a NAEP scale score of 229.
“In 2007, for example, the state proficiency standard in 4 th grade mathematics in Alabama corresponded to a NAEP scale score of 205 whereas the identical proficiency standard in Arkansas was equivalent to a NAEP scale score of 229.”
From The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement (2011) · cites this paper as Braun et al. 2008
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.20586 · Cited by 487 · see citing works
- Authors
- Braun, H., & Qian, J.
- Affiliations
- Boston College (US)
- Educational Testing Service (US)
- ORCID
- Braun, Henry
- Venue
- ETS Research Report Series
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 2008
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2330-8516 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055281518
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ETS Research Report Series (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Keywords
- standard setting, public school students, measurement error, complex sampling designs, error estimates
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review