Cited by 306Psychometric Methodologies and TestingEducational Assessment and PedagogySchool Choice and Performance

Grades and Test Scores: Accounting for Observed Differences

Willingham, Warren W., Pollack, Judith M., Lewis, Charles·2002·Journal of Educational Measurement

Abstract

Why do grades and test scores often differ? A framework of possible differences is proposed in this article. An approximation of the framework was tested with data on 8,454 high school seniors from the National Education Longitudinal Study. Individual and group differences in grade versus test performance were substantially reduced by focusing the two measures on similar academic subjects, correcting for grading variations and unreliability, and adding teacher ratings and other information about students. Concurrent prediction of high school average was thus increased from 0.62 to 0.90; differential prediction in eight subgroups was reduced to 0.02 letter‐grades. Grading variation was a major source of discrepancy between grades and test scores. Other major sources were teacher ratings and Scholastic Engagement, a promising organizing principle for understanding student achievement. Engagement was defined by three types of observable behavior: employing school skills, demonstrating initiative, and avoiding competing activities. While groups varied in average achievement, group performance was generally similar on grades and tests. Major factors in achievement were similarly constituted and similarly related from group to group. Differences between grades and tests give these measures complementary strengths in high‐stakes assessment. If artifactual differences between the two measures are not corrected, common statistical estimates of validity and fairness are unduly conservative.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2002.tb01133.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Conscientious classroom behaviors are more strongly associated with GPA than with standardized achievement test scores.

    “conscientious classroom behaviors are more strongly associated with GPA than with standardized achievement test scores.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Willingham, Pollack, and Lewis [2002]

  • Willingham, Pollack and Lewis [2002] estimate a raw correlation of r=0.62 (p<0.01) between total grade average and achievement test scores.

    “Willingham, Pollack and Lewis [2002] estimate a raw correlation of 0.62 r  ( 0.01) p  between total grade average and achievement test scores.”

    From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Willingham, Pollack and Lewis [2002]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Willingham, W. W., Pollack, J. M., & Lewis, C.
Affiliations
Educational Testing Service (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Measurement
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-03
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
1-37
ISSN
  • 0022-0655 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-3984
OpenAlex
W2102458100
Cited by
306
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 22
FWCI
4.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Measurement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
Keywords
test score reliability, teacher ratings, high-stakes testing, National Education Longitudinal Study

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