Conceptualizing Comparability

Autor/in	Newton, Paul E.
Titel	Conceptualizing Comparability
Quelle	In: Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8 (2010) 4, S.172-179 (8 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1536-6367
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Foreign Countries; Measurement Techniques; Psychometrics; Comparative Analysis; Classification; Discourse Analysis; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Testing Problems; Test Theory; Equated Scores; Scaling; Educational Assessment; Evaluation Methods; Educational Testing; High Stakes Tests; Definitions; Predictive Measurement; Australia; United Kingdom (England); United Kingdom (Wales); United States; Advanced Placement Examinations (CEEB); SAT (College Admission Test) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ausland; Messtechnik; Psychometry; Psychometrie; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Diskursanalyse; Test analysis; Testauswertung; Testanwendung; Testtheorie; Scale construction; Skalenkonstruktion; Education; assessment; Bewertungssystem; Begriffsbestimmung; Australien; USA
Abstract	This article presents the author's rejoinder to thinking about linking from issue 8(1). Particularly within the more embracing linking frameworks, e.g., Holland & Dorans (2006) and Holland (2007), there appears to be a major disjunction between (1) classification discourse: the supposed basis for classification, that is, the underlying theory of comparability; and (2) classification practice: the framework contents. The classification discourse is characterized by a continuum-deficit rhetoric, in which equating is the paradigm for understanding linking, and linking relationships are characterized in terms of how far they depart from the pinnacle of linking: equating. The linking relationship continuum runs from equating, to approximate equating (including grades thereof), to not-even-approximate-equating and, therefore, not linking. The classification discourse, therefore, has no conceptual space for linking relationships that fail even to approximate equating. Classification practice, on the other hand, tends to be more embracing, accommodating techniques that can be applied in contexts not remotely like equating, for instance, battery and anchor scaling, when standards are linked across tests of radically different domains. How, then, are we to understand linking relationships that clearly do not approximate equating? There are two possibilities: Either we broaden our conceptual framework or we banish extreme forms of linking. (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Psychology Press. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10