Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 543

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implications of Evidence‐Centered Design for Educational Testing

Mislevy, Robert J., Haertel, Geneva D.·2006·Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
DOI 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00075.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Evidence‐centered assessment design (ECD) provides language, concepts, and knowledge representations for designing and delivering educational assessments, all organized around the evidentiary argument an assessment is meant to embody. This article describes ECD in terms of layers for analyzing domains, laying out arguments, creating schemas for operational elements such as tasks and measurement models, implementing the assessment, and carrying out the operational processes. We argue that this framework helps designers take advantage of developments from measurement, technology, cognitive psychology, and learning in the domains. Examples of ECD tools and applications are drawn from the Principled Assessment Design for Inquiry (PADI) project. Attention is given to implications for large‐scale tests such as state accountability measures, with a special eye for computer‐based simulation tasks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00075.x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1993, Benchmarks for scientific literacy
  2. 10.1080/00405849709543775 · doi:10.1080/00405849709543775
  3. Baker E. L.(2002).Design of automated authoring systems for tests.Proceedings of technology and assessment: Thinking ahead proceedings from a workshop(pp.79–89). Washington DC: National Research Council Board on Testing and Assessment Center for Education Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
  4. Chung G. K. Delacruz W. K. Dionne G. B. &Bewley W. L.(2003 December).Linking assessment and instruction using ontologies.Proceedings of the I/ITSEC Orlando FL .
  5. Cisco Systems, 2000, Internetworking technology basics
  6. 10.1037/1082-989X.3.3.380 · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.3.380 · Paper page
  7. Ericsson K. A., 1996, The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performances, sports, and games
  8. Gotwals A. W., 2006, Cognitive predictions: BioKIDS implementation of the PADI assessment system
  9. Hamel L., 2006, A Wizard for PADI assessment design
  10. IMS Global Learning Consortium(2000).IMS question and test interoperability specification: A review(White Paper IMSWP‐1 Version A). Burlington MA :IMS Global Learning Consortium.
  11. Messick S., 1989, Educational measurement, 13
  12. Niemi D., 2005, Moving technology up‐design requirements for valid, effective classroom and large‐scale assessment
  13. Niemi D., 2005, Moving technology up‐design requirements for valid, effective classroom and large‐scale assessment
  14. Pearlman M.(2001).Performance assessments for adult education: How to design performance tasks. Presented at the workshop“Performance Assessments for Adult Education: Exploring the Measurement Issues ” hosted by the National Research Council's Board on Testing and Assessment December 12–13 Washington DC .
  15. 10.1207/S15327574IJT023&4_7 · doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt023&4_7
  16. Scalise K., 2003, Innovative item types and outcome spaces in computer‐adaptive assessment: A literature survey
  17. Shute V. J., 2000, Computers as Cognitive Tools, Volume 2, 309
  18. Simon H. A., 2001, The sciences of the artificial
  19. Songer N. B.(2004)Evidence of complex reasoning in technology and science: Notes from Inner City Detroit Michigan USA. IPSI‐2004 Pescara Conference Italy .
  20. Stevens R., 2006, Automated scoring of complex tasks in computer based testing, 259
  21. Webb N., 2006, Handbook of test development, 155
  22. Wickham D., 2002, Designing effective wizards: A multidisciplinary approach

Cited by

See all 543

Metadata

Authors
Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D.
Venue
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-12
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
6-20
ISSN
  • 0731-1745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-3992
DOI
10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00075.x
OpenAlex
W2063747225
Cited by
543
References
45
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 143 d)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Implications of Evidence‐Centered Design for Educational Testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00075.x
The paper
Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of Evidence‐Centered Design for Educational Testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00075.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.