REFERENCES
American Council on Education (1993). Tests of the General Educational Development Technical Manual. Washington, DC: Author.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Center for Applied Linguistics (2003). Development of a computer-assisted assessment for adult English language learners. Task 16, Deliverable 16e.1 (Final): Test Manual/Technical Report. Washington, DC: Author.
Cizek, G.J. (1993). Reactions to the National Academy of Education report [Setting Performance Standards for Student Achievement]. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
Cizek, G.J. (2001), ed. Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gormley, W.T., and Balla, S.J. (2004). Bureaucracy and democracy: Accountability and performance. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Gruber, J.E. (1987). Controlling bureaucracies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hambleton, R.K. (2001). Setting performance standards on educational assessments and criteria for evaluating the process. In G.J. Cizek (ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives, pp. 89-116. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hambleton, R.K., and Plake, B.S. (1995). Extended Angoff procedures to set standards on complex performance assessments . Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 41-56.
Huynh, H., Meyer, P., and Barton, K. (2000). Technical documentation for the South Carolina PACT-1999 tests. Columbia: South Carolina Department of Education.
Impara, J.C., and Plake, B.S. (1998). Teachers' ability to estimate item difficulty: A test of the assumptions in the Angoff standard setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 69-81.
Kane, M. (1995). Examinee-centered vs. task-centered standard setting. In Proceedings of Joint Conference on Standard Setting in Large-Scale Assessments, pp. 119-139. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
McDonnell, L.M. (2004). Politics, persuasion, and educational testing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mehrens, W. (1995). Methodological issues in standard setting for educational exams. In Proceedings of Joint Conference on Standard Setting in Large-Scale Assessments, pp. 221-263. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
National Research Council (1999a). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Committee on Appropriate Test Use. J.P. Heubert and R.M. Hauser, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (1999b). Grading the nation’s report card: Evaluating NAEP and transforming the assessment of educational progress. Committee on the Evaluation of National and State Assessments of Educational Progress. J.W. Pellegrino, L.R. Jones, and K.J. Mitchell, eds. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J.W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Plake, B.S. (2002). Evaluating the technical quality of high stakes tests used in K-12 education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35(3).
Plake, B.S., and Impara, J.C. (2001). Ability of panelists to estimate item performance for a target group of candidates: An issue in judgmental standard setting. Educational Assessment, 7, 87-98.
Plake, B.S., Impara, J.C., and Irwin, P.M. (2000). Consistency of Angoff-based predictions of item performance: Evidence of the technical quality of results from the Angoff standard setting method. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7, 87-98.
Reckase, M. (2001). Innovative methods for helping standard-setting participants to perform their task: The role of feedback regarding consistency, accuracy, and impact. In G.J. Cizek (ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives, pp.159-174. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shepard, L.A. (1995). Implications for standard setting of the National Academy of Education evaluation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement levels. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments, Volume II, pp.143-160. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (1997). Becoming an American: Immigration and immigrant policy. Washington, D.C.: Author.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2003). Fiscal year 2003 yearbook of immigration statistics, Table 31. Available: http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/NATZ2003yrbk/NATZ2003list.htm [Retrieved November 15, 2004].
Wise, L.L., Harris, C.D., Koger, L.E., Bacci, E.L., Ford, J.P., Sipes, D.E., Sun, S., Koger, M.E., and Deatz, R.C. (2003). Independent evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): AB 1609 Study Report. Prepared for the California State Department of Education, Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/ab1609sr.asp [Retrieved August 31, 2004].