Search for: All records

Determining the most appropriate method of scoring an assessment is basedon multiple factors, including the intended use of results, the assessment's pur-pose, and time constraints. Both the dichotomous and partial credit modelshave their advantages, yet direct comparisons of assessment outcomes fromeach method are not typical with constructed response items. The presentstudy compared the impact of both scoring methods on the internal structureand consequential validity of a middle-grades problem-solving assessmentcalled the problem solving measure for grade six (PSM6). After being scoredboth ways, Rasch dichotomous and partial credit analyses indicated similarlystrong psychometric findings across models. Student outcome measures on thePSM6, scored both dichotomously and with partial credit, demonstratedstrong, positive, significant correlation. Similar demographic patterns werenoted regardless of scoring method. Both scoring methods produced similarresults, suggesting that either would be appropriate to use with the PSM6. 

In the United States, national and state standardized assessments have become a metric for measuring student learning and high-quality learning environments. As the COVID- 19 pandemic offered a multitude of learning modalities (e.g., hybrid, socially distanced face-to-face instruction, virtual environment), it becomes critical to examine how this learning disruption influenced elementary mathematic performance. This study tested for differences in mathematics performance on fourth grade standardized tests before and during COVID-19 in a case study of a rural Ohio school district using the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) mathematics test. A two-way ANOVA showed that fourth- grade MAP mathematics scores were statistically similar for the 2019 pre-COVID cohort (n = 31) and 2020 COVID-19 cohort (n = 82), and by gender group, between Fall 2019 and Fall 2020. Implications for rural students’ academic performance in virtual learning environments are discussed. 

Determining the most appropriate method of scoring an assessment is based on multiple factors, including the intended use of results, the assessment's purpose, and time constraints. Both the dichotomous and partial credit models have their advantages, yet direct comparisons of assessment outcomes from each method are not typical with constructed response items. The present study compared the impact of both scoring methods on the internal structure and consequential validity of a middle-grades problem-solving assessment called the problem solving measure for grade six (PSM6). After being scored both ways, Rasch dichotomous and partial credit analyses indicated similarly strong psychometric findings across models. Student outcome measures on the PSM6, scored both dichotomously and with partial credit, demonstrated strong, positive, significant correlation. Similar demographic patterns were noted regardless of scoring method. Both scoring methods produced similar results, suggesting that either would be appropriate to use with the PSM6. 

Problem solving is a central focus of mathematics teaching and learning. If teachers are expected to support students' problem-solving development, then it reasons that teachers should also be able to solve problems aligned to grade level content standards. The purpose of this validation study is twofold: (1) to present evidence supporting the use of the Problem Solving Measures Grades 3–5 with preservice teachers (PSTs), and (2) to examine PSTs' abilities to solve problems aligned to grades 3–5 academic content standards. This study used Rasch measurement techniques to support psychometric analysis of the Problem Solving Measures when used with PSTs. Results indicate the Problem Solving Measures are appropriate for use with PSTs, and PSTs' performance on the Problem Solving Measures differed between first-year PSTs and end-of-program PSTs. Implications include program evaluation and the potential benefits of using K-12 student-level assessments as measures of PSTs' content knowledge. 

Using a test for a purpose it was not intended for can promote misleading results and interpretations, potentially leading to negative consequences from testing (AERA et al., 2014). For example, a mathematics test designed for use with grade 7 students is likely inappropriate for use with grade 3 students. There may be cases when a test can be used with a population related to the intended one; however, validity evidence and claims must be examined. We explored the use of student measures with preservice teachers (PSTs) in a teacher-education context. The present study intends to spark a discussion about using some student measures with teachers. The Problem-solving Measures (PSMs) were developed for use with grades 3-8 students. They measure students’ problem-solving performance within the context of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSI, 2010; see Bostic & Sondergeld, 2015; Bostic et al., 2017; Bostic et al., 2021). After their construction, the developers wondered: If students were expected to engage successfully on the PSMs, then might future grades 3-8 teachers also demonstrate proficiency? 

Using a test for a purpose it was not intended for can promote misleading results and interpretations, potentially leading to negative consequences from testing (AERA et al., 2014). For example, a mathematics test designed for use with grade 7 students is likely inappropriate for use with grade 3 students. There may be cases when a test can be used with a population related to the intended one; however, validity evidence and claims must be examined. We explored the use of student measures with preservice teachers (PSTs) in a teacher-education context. The present study intends to spark a discussion about using some student measures with teachers. The Problem-solving Measures (PSMs) were developed for use with grades 3-8 students. They measure students’ problem-solving performance within the context of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSI, 2010; see Bostic & Sondergeld, 2015; Bostic et al., 2017; Bostic et al., 2021). After their construction, the developers wondered: If students were expected to engage successfully on the PSMs, then might future grades 3-8 teachers also demonstrate proficiency?