Skip to main content

Grading the Nation's Report Card Evaluating NAEP and Transforming the Assessment of Educational Progress (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Appendix D: Exploring New Models for Achievement-Level Setting
Pages 256-261

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 256...
... The subject-matter experts who develop NAEP frameworks would include individuals who are well positioned to describe the knowledge and skills that students performing at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels should exhibit at each of the grades assessed. During assessment development, assessment materials (including draft scoring rubrics)
Read the entire page →
From page 257...
... For example, the behavioral anchor description at 160 represents a description of the aggregate of knowledge and skills achieved by students correctly answering the items that mapped between 155 and 165 on the proficiency scale (or, for constructed-response items, generating responses that correspond to scoring levels that mapped between 155 and 165~. This set of behavioral anchor descriptions provides a view of student achievement arrayed along the NAEP proficiency scale.
Read the entire page →
From page 258...
... ; 1996 main NAEP mathematics (Reese et al., 1997~; 1996 long-term trend NAEP (Campbell et al., 1997~; 1995 TIMSS grade 8 science (Beaton et al., 1996~.
Read the entire page →
From page 259...
... Achievement-level data from other NAEP grade 8 assessments, achievement data from countries participating in TIMSS, and data from behavioral anchoring in the NAEP long-term trend assessments could also be mapped to corresponding percentile locations on the scale. While such direct comparisons of the latter three data collections to main NAEP science have serious limitations (Johnson, 1997; National Research Council, 1999)
Read the entire page →
From page 260...
... Once a general proficiency range has been determined (e.g., that the 120-140 anchor descriptions describe basic performance, but the 160 description is proficient, and the 100 description is below basic) , raters would examine where individual items mapped to more narrowly determine the specific proficiency at which a outscore would be set.
Read the entire page →
From page 261...
... We do believe further discussion of the features of this model is warranted, as this method relies on rater judgments about aggregates of achievement data, permits evaluation of reasonableness using normative and comparative data, fosters joint participation in standard setting by policy makers and educators, and may result in a more easily understood achievement-levelsetting process. REFERENCES Beaton, Albert E., Michael 0.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • behavioral anchor
  • anchor descriptions
  • naep proficiency
  • comparative data
  • achievement levels

  • student performance
  • main naep
  • national assessment
  • advanced performance
  • naep science

  • item mapping
  • final achievement
  • educational progress
  • scoring levels
  • data collections

  • achievement data
  • assessment governing
  • assessment materials
  • external comparative
  • performance data

  • behavioral anchoring
  • mapped onto
  • basic performance
  • descriptions serve
  • describe basic

  • generating responses
  • levels submitted
  • near selected
  • scoring rubrics
  • using behavioral


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.