Re: definition of "standardized test"

[Dr. Bob Wildblood]

As someone who has worked with testing and measurement as part of my  
graduate training, was involved with the revision of the WISC in the  
early 70's and who has used tests for more than 30 years in schools,  
and in private practice, here's my Euro 0.02 worth (about 0.0213  
right now, I guess.)  First as to standardization.  There are two  
parts to standardization.  The first is what we psychologists do when  
we concern ourselves with appropriate reference groups and with  
matters such as reliability and validity.  The second is what  
Atkinson was talking about and that is that each test that is  
administered should be administered in "exactly the same way" so that  
anyone taking the test would receive essentially the same test  
stimuli to which to respond.  This is particularly important in the  
administration of individually administered tests.  That's why when  
you give the person being tested the picture arrangement or the  
puzzles that are put together, the pieces must all be put on the  
table in exactly the same position for everyone being tested every  
time.  That's the way the test was standardized (the comparison group  
and that is the way each new person being tested has to be dealt with  
so that they are receiving the "same test."

In regard to the differences between aptitude and achievement tests,  
I think that has been one of the most misused concepts in testing.   
If you give a test before the student has been exposed to a  
particular idea or concept or subject and then give them another  
"different" test at the end of the period of learning, you are  
essentially giving them the same test (some would argue that the best  
you can call them are parallel forms of the same test) pre- and  
post.  But, the test publishers have the educators convinced that  
there are two different tests that measure two different things.   
Bah! Humbug!

Dr. Bob Wildlbood
Lecturer in Psychology
Indiana University Kokomo
Kokomo, IN  56904-9003
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 May, 2005, at 13:49, Ken Steele wrote:
Here is the teaser summary from the Observer:
"There were some interesting twists and turns on the road to the  
new SAT, and APS Fellow Richard C. Atkinson, President Emeritus of  
the University of California, was in the driver's seat. Atkinson  
offers a detailed account of his leading role in changing the face  
of college admissions testing."

The article is adapted from an invited address at the annual  
meeting of the American Educational Research Association in April,  
2004.  That definition, and the definition of an aptitude vs. an  
achievement test opens the talk. I would think that this group  
would be able to handle a technical definition.

His distinction between aptitude and achievement tests was odd also.
"For example, an algebra test given at then end of a course would  
be classified as an achievement test, whereas a test given prior to  
the course--designed to predict the student's performance in the  
algebra course--would be classified as an aptitude test.  In actual  
practice, the distinction between achievement and aptitude tests is  
not as neat as these definitions might suggest but the conceptual  
difference is useful."

It is an odd article and I hesitate to summarize it.  I think it  
would be fair to say that Atkinson's goal was to change the SAT  
from at aptitude test to an achievement test.

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]