Influence of proportional number relationships on item accessibility and students’ strategies

Carney, Michele; Smith, Everett V.; Hughes, Gwyneth; Brendefur, Jonathan L.; Crawford, Angela

doi:10.1007/s13394-016-0177-z

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The assumption was 'Responses to items reflect proportional reasoning understanding of composed unit and multiplicative comparison conceptions and do not unduly reflect construct irrelevant strategies, such as input-output (correspondence based) strategies or more general test-taking strategies.' Based on previous attempts to develop items that assessed students' composed unit and multiplicative comparison understanding (Carney, Smith, Hughes, Brendefur, & Crawford, 2016), we knew that assessing these conceptions was particularly difficult and that strong evidence would be needed to support this statement. While this clearly fits within the response process source of evidence, we wondered if test developers and/or users without a strong background on student cognition related to proportional reasoning would necessarily have recognized the need to explicate this interpretation and related assumption so explicitly.…”

Section: Quality and Depth Of Construct Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Approaches to Interpretive Use Arguments

Carney

Crawford

Siebert

et al. 2019

Applied Measurement in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014) recommend an argument-based approach to validation that involves a clear statement of the intended interpretation and use of test scores, the identification of the underlying assumptions and inferences in that statement-termed the interpretation/use argument, and gathering of evidence to support or refute the assumptions and inferences. We present two approaches to articulating the assumptions and inferences that underlie a score interpretation and use statement, also termed the interpretation/use argument (Kane, 2016). One approach uses the five sources of validity evidence in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014) as a framework and the other approach uses Kane's chain of assumptions/inferences approach (Kane, 2006, 2013a, 2016) as a framework. Through this process we identified aspects of these approaches that need to be further clarified for instrument developers to consistently implement either approach, identified important differences in the perspective each approach takes on validation, and highlight important questions for the measurement and mathematics education research fields to consider. This is an author-produced, peer-reviewed version of this article. The final, definitive version of this document can be found online at Applied Measurement in Education, published by Routledge. Copyright restrictions may apply.

show abstract

Section: Quality and Depth Of Construct Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Approaches to Interpretive Use Arguments

Carney

Crawford

Siebert

et al. 2019

Applied Measurement in Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Construct maps and item frameworks: an example in proportional reasoning

Carney

Smith²,

Hughes

2022

Math Ed Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Construct maps and related item type frameworks, which respectively describe and identify common patterns in student reasoning, provide teachers with tools to support instruction built upon students’ intuitive thinking. We present a methodological approach–embedded within common assessment development processes–for developing such construct maps and item type frameworks which entails (1) articulating a construct map, (2) developing diagnostic item types, (3) comparing item type difficulties, and (4) modifying or providing evidence in support of the construct map. We present an example focused on students’ proportional reasoning based on its centrality to mathematical success. The results further inform our construct map for students’ proportional reasoning and provide a diagnostic item-type framework.

show abstract