Ch3 p. 80 #3: What kinds of educational assessment procedures do you think should definitely require the assembly of reliability evidence? Why?
I was going over this question for a while to try and decide what my opinion is on this subject. I think that I agree with the author when reliability in the classroom was brought up. I do not think that it is absolutely crucial that a teacher involves all three types of reliability evidence because all three may not fit into every classroom situation. Teachers should focus on knowing what reliability is but do not need to get carried away with every specific test. Teachers should understand the concept so that they can then take the truth of reliable assessment and apply it in their own classrooms. Teachers need to continuously measure student’s growth and they need to understand what works and what doesn’t in terms of assessment. I think that the statewide tests that are a requirement for schools should absolutely require the assembly of reliability evidence. Since so much importance is placed upon student test scores, I think that evidence should always be presented on how reliable the tests are in the first place.
#5: What is your reaction to classification consistency as an approach to the determination of reliability?
I understand the argument with classification consistency that is being placed on the table but I do not completely agree. I do agree that a test’s reliability and consistency should be based on much more then a one time test. This is especially true if the test is exempting qualified students from a topic of study because of their scores. However, I think that a test would lose a large portion of its validity when it is taken a second time by the same students who have already gone through the test once. I understand that a student’s achievement on a test is not going to only reflect their knowledge, but also their mood, emotions, physical health, and so much more. However, the evidence of a test’s consistency will be skewed if the results are coming from students who have gone through the same test twice.
Ch4 p. 109 #2: It was suggested that some measurement specialists regard all forms of validity evidence as construct-related validity evidence. Do you agree? If so, or if not, why?
After studying this subject, I think that I agree with the connection between all forms of validity evidence and construct-related validity evidence. The reason for this belief is that construct-related validity evidence is the original idea of creating a hypothesis that then leads to an experiment that then leads to results. The construct-related validity evidence answers the important question of, “Is the test accurately measuring what it was created to measure?” This specific result comes from careful study and planning that is put into a hypothesis before the testing actually begins. The end result is then studied and the test is measured for its effectiveness. All of these components are important elements of the validity evidence that I have studied so far. I agree that there are still some specific differences that make different types of validity evidence stand apart from each other. However, on a larger scale, I think that the overall idea of construct-related validity evidence can be found in the other forms of validity evidence.
#5: What kind(s) of validity evidence do you think classroom teachers need to assemble regarding their classroom assessment devices?
I believe that the necessary validity evidence will be different based on the teacher and the classroom. Since I have started my teaching program, I have noticed that teachers have so many different ways of teaching. In this realization, I have found that different teachers also have differing opinions on which assessment devices they prefer to use in the classroom. I would say that when teachers put together their classroom assessment devices, they probably look to use the content-related evidence of validity in most situations. I think that the construct–related validity evidence would also work, but that the content-related evidence would still be most applicable in classroom settings. The content-related evidence would work in tests and quizzes that assess student’s knowledge of the subject matter. This would allow teachers to see if the tests results match up with the curricular aims of the class. I like how the text said, “ The only reason teachers should assess their students is to make better educational decisions about those students.” (Popham, 2011, p. 87). The content-related validity evidence allows teachers to plan out where they want their class to end up and the steps they need to take to get there.