Mapping State Standards to the NAEP Scale

[Pages:78]Research Report

Mapping State Standards to the NAEP Scale

Henry Braun Jiahe Qian

November 2008

ETS RR-08-57

Listening. Learning. Leading.?

Mapping State Standards to the NAEP Scale Henry Braun1

Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA Jiahe Qian

ETS, Princeton, NJ

November 2008

As part of its nonprofit mission, ETS conducts and disseminates the results of research to advance quality and equity in education and assessment for the benefit of ETS's constituents and the field.

ETS Research Reports provide preliminary and limited dissemination of ETS research prior to publication. To obtain a PDF or a print copy of a report, please visit:



Copyright ? 2008 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS, the ETS logo, and LISTENING. LEARNING.

LEADING. are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS).

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. Key words: NAEP, proficiency standards, state tests, equipercentile linking, No Child Left Behind

i

Acknowledgments The authors thank Mary Pitoniak and Bruce Kaplan for help in planning this study, as well as John Wiley and Sailesh Vezzu for assistance with computing. They also appreciate the suggestions and comments by James Carlson, Andrew Kolstad, Taslima Rahman, Alexandra Sedlacek, Bruce Kaplan, Paul Holland, John Mazzeo, Don McLaughlin, and the editors. They are particularly grateful to Dan Koretz for his unflagging efforts to clarify the import of our findings. Of course, any remaining errors or misinterpretations are the responsibility of the authors. This work was supported by the National Center for Education Statistics, Contract # ED-02-CO-0023.

ii

Table of Contents Page

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Outline of the ETS Procedure for Mapping State Standards to NAEP Scale............................. 3 3. Details of the Methodology ........................................................................................................ 7

3.1 The Weights for NAEP Schools ........................................................................................ 7 3.2 The Ratio Estimator for the Target Proportion.................................................................. 8 3.3 Empirical Evaluation of the Estimates ............................................................................ 10

3.3.1 Data Resources Used in Analysis.......................................................................... 10 3.3.2 Evaluation of the Bias of the Estimates of the Target Proportions ....................... 10 3.3.3 Evaluation of the Estimates of the NAEP Equivalent to the State Standard......... 19 4. Estimation of Variances of the NAEP Equivalents to the State Standards............................... 28 4.1 Variance Estimation of Simple Average of School Scores ............................................. 28 4.2 The Variances of Estimated NAEP Equivalents to State Standards................................ 28 4.2.1 The NAEP Jackknife Replicate Resampling Approach ........................................ 29 4.2.2 Estimation of the Imputation Errors and Total Variances..................................... 29 4.3 Evaluation of the Variance Estimates.............................................................................. 30 5. Findings..................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1 The State Standards for the 2000 State Mathematics Tests............................................. 36 5.2 The state Standards for 2002 State Reading Tests........................................................... 41 5.3 Further Considerations..................................................................................................... 49 6. Another Application: Mapping the NAEP Achievement Standards Onto a State Test Scale .. 54 7. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 56 References..................................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix....................................................................................................................................... 65

iii

Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9.

List of Tables Page

G4 2000 Math: The Unweighted and Weighted Proportions of Tested Students With Scores at or Above the State Standards ...................................................................... 12 G8 2000 Math: The Unweighted and Weighted Proportions of Tested Students With Scores at or Above the State Standards ...................................................................... 14 G4 2002 Reading: The Weighted Proportions of Tested Students With Scores at or Above the State Standards .......................................................................................... 16 G8 2002 Reading: The Weighted Proportions of Tested Students With Scores at or Above the State Standards .......................................................................................... 18 G4 2000 Math: The Unweighted and Weighted NAEP Equivalents to the State Standards..................................................................................................................... 22 G8 2000 Math: The Unweighted and Weighted NAEP Equivalents to the State Standards..................................................................................................................... 25 G4 2002 Reading: The Weighted NAEP Equivalents to the State Standards ............ 31 G8 2002 Reading: The Weighted NAEP Equivalents to the State Standards ............ 33 The State Equivalents to the NAEP Mathematics Achievement Levels and Their Standard Errors for 2000 Michigan State Mathematics Test, Grade 4 ....................... 57

iv

List of Figures Page

Figure 1. The schematic of the mapping procedure.................................................................... 5 Figure 2. G4 2000 math (proficient): NAEP equivalent (WAM or ULM) versus variance [total

variance or Var(SRS)]. .............................................................................................. 37 Figure 3. G8 2000 math (proficient): NAEP equivalent (WAM or ULM) versus variance [total

variance or Var(SRS)]. .............................................................................................. 37 Figure 4. G4 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards vs. proportions at or above

state standards............................................................................................................ 38 Figure 5. G8 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards vs. proportions at or above

state standards............................................................................................................ 38 Figure 6. G4 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards vs. proportions at or above

state standards (standards with large SEs removed). ................................................ 39 Figure 7. G8 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards vs. proportions at or above

state standards (standards with large SEs removed). ................................................ 39 Figure 8. G4 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards (weighted) vs. total

variance. .................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 9. G8 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards (weighted) vs. total

variance. .................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 10. G4 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards (weighted) vs. total variance

(NAEP equivalents with large SEs removed). .......................................................... 43 Figure 11. G8 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards (weighted) vs. total variance

(NAEP equivalents with large SEs removed). .......................................................... 43 Figure 12. G4 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards of proficient vs. proportions

at or above state standards of proficient. ................................................................... 44 Figure 13. G8 2000 math: NAEP equivalents to the state standards of proficient vs. proportions

at or above state standards of proficient. ................................................................... 44 Figure 14. G4 2002 reading: NAEP equivalents to the state standards vs. proportions at or

above state standards. ................................................................................................ 45 Figure 15. G8 2002 reading: NAEP equivalents to the state standards vs. proportions at or

above state standards. ................................................................................................ 45

v

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download