Role Of Criterion Referenced Tests And Norm Essay Example

a job. In such applications the test must be maximally differentiating in order to enable the employer to select the best applicants. Thus a norm-referenced test is a type of test, assessment, or evaluation which yields an estimate of the position of the tested individual in a predefined population, with respect to the trait being measured. This estimate is derived from the analysis of test scores and possibly other relevant data from a sample drawn from the population.

This type of test identifies whether the test taker performed better or worse than other test takers, but not whether the test taker knows either more or less material than is necessary for a given purpose. The second use is that tests can supply criterion-referenced measurements. In criterion-referenced measurement the interest is not in using test scores for ranking subjects on the continuum measured by the test, but in carefully specifying the behavioural referents (the "criterion") pertaining to scores or points along this continuum.

Measurements are norm-referenced when they indicate how much better or worse the performances of individual subjects are compared with those of other subjects in the norm group; they are criterion-referenced when they indicate what performances a subject with a given score is able to do, and what his behavioural repertory is, without any reference to scores of other subjects. Thus a criterion-referenced test is a test that provides a basis for determining a candidate's level of knowledge and skills in relation to a well-defined domain of content.

Often one or more performance standards are set on the test score scale to aid in test score interpretation. Criterion-referenced tests are also

known as domain-referenced tests, competency tests, basic skills tests, mastery tests, performance tests or assessments, authentic assessments, objective-referenced tests, standards-based tests, credentialing exams, and more (Popham and Husek, 1969). What all of these tests have in common is that they attempt to determine a candidate's level of performance in relation to a well-defined domain of content.

Thus, it might be said that criterion-referenced tests permit a candidate's score to be interpreted in relation to a domain of content, and norm-referenced tests permit a candidate's score to be interpreted in relation to a group of examinees. The first interpretation is content-centred, and the second interpretation is examinee-centred. Because these two types of tests have fundamentally different purposes, they are constructed differently and evaluated differently (Bond, 1996). Criterion-referenced tests place a primary focus on the content and what is being measured.

Norm-referenced tests are also concerned about what is being measured but the degree of concern is less since the domain of content is not the primary focus for score interpretation. In norm-referenced test development, item selection, beyond the requirement that items meet the content specifications, is driven by item statistics. Items are needed that are not too difficult or too easy, and that are highly discriminating. These are the types of items that contribute most to score spread, and enhance test score reliability and validity.

With criterion-referenced test development, extensive efforts go into ensuring content validity. Item statistics play less a role in item selection though highly discriminating items are still greatly valued, and sometimes item statistics are used to select items that maximise the discriminating power of a test at the performance

standards of interest on the test score scale (Bond, 1996). Intended purposes and uses of the two approaches A norm-referenced assessment makes judgements about people, expresses students’ scores in rank order, based on a distribution of scores.

For instance, the top 10% of the class are awarded high distinction, the next 15% distinction, and so on. Thus, it relates the achievement of a particular student to the achievements of other students after the teaching is over (Connoley, 2004). The major reason for using norm-referenced tests is to classify students (Bond, 1996). They are designed to highlight achievement differences between and among students to produce a dependable rank order of students across a continuum of achievement from high achievers to low achievers (Stiggins, 1994).

School systems might want to classify students in this way so that they can be properly placed in remedial programmes. These types of tests are also used to help teachers select students for different ability level reading or mathematics instructional groups. With norm-referenced tests, a representative group of students is given the test prior to its availability to the public. The scores of the students who take the test after publication are then compared to those of the norm group. Connoley (2004) observes that criterion-referenced assessment makes judgements about performance, rather than on people.

It assesses the extent to which a student has achieved the intended learning objectives and performance outcomes of a subject. Thus, student performance is compared to a previously specified standard of achievement (criteria) and not relative to other students. Under this type of assessment, teachers and students can see where students are succeeding and where

they are not. The criteria are usually set before teaching has taken place. It may be necessary to adjust if set inappropriately high or low before reporting final grades (Biggs 2003).

Criterion-referenced tests are used in many ways (Bond, 1996). Classroom teachers use them to monitor student performance in their day-to-day activities. States find them useful for evaluating student performance and generating educational accountability information at the classroom, school, district, and state levels. The tests are based on the curricula, and the results provide a basis for determining how much is being learned by students and how well the educational system is producing desired results. Criterion-referenced tests are also used in training programmes to assess learning (Bond, 1996).

While norm-referenced tests ascertain the rank of students, criterion-referenced tests determine "... what test takers can do and what they know, not how they compare to others (Anastasi, 1988, p. 102). Criterion-referenced tests report how well students are doing relative to a pre-determined performance level on a specified set of educational goals or outcomes included in the school, district, or state curriculum. Educators or policy makers may choose to use a criterion-referenced test when they wish to see how well students have learned the knowledge and skills which they are expected to have mastered.

This information may be used as one piece of information to determine how well the student is learning the desired curriculum and how well the school is teaching that curriculum. Both norm-referenced tests and criterion-referenced tests can be standardised. The U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1992) defines a standardised test as one that uses uniform procedures for administration

and scoring in order to assure that the results from different people are comparable.

Any kind of test, from multiple choice to essays to oral examinations, can be standardised if uniform scoring and administration are used. This means that the comparison of student scores is possible. Thus, it can be assumed that two students who receive the identical scores on the same standardised test demonstrate corresponding levels of performance. Most tests are standardised so that every score can be interpreted in a uniform manner for all students and schools (Bond, 1996). Issues of reliability and validity in assessment

Because the purpose of a criterion-referenced test is quite different from that of a norm-referenced test, the approaches used for reliability and validity assessment are different too (Popham, and Husek, 1969). With criterion-referenced tests, scores are often used to sort candidates into performance categories. Consistency of scores over parallel administrations becomes less central than consistency of classifications of candidates to performance categories over parallel administrations (Livingston and Lewis, 1995).

Variation in candidate scores is not so important if candidates are still assigned to the same performance category. Therefore, it has been common to define reliability for a criterion-referenced test as the extent to which performance classifications are consistent over parallel-form administrations. For example, it might be determined that 80% of the candidates are classified in the same way by parallel forms of a criterion-referenced test administered with little or no instruction in between test administrations (Livingston and Lewis, 1995).

With criterion-referenced tests, the focus of validity investigations is on the match between the content of the test items and the knowledge or skills

that they are intended to measure, and the match between the collection of test items and what they measure and the domain of content that the tests are expected to measure (Livingston and Lewis, 1995). The “alignment” of the content of the test to the domain of content that is to be assessed is called content validity evidence. Many criterion-referenced tests are constructed to assess higher-level thinking and writing skills, such as problem solving and critical reasoning.

Demonstrating that the tasks in a test are actually assessing the intended higher-level skills is important, and this involves judgements and the collection of empirical evidence. So, construct validity evidence too becomes crucial in the process of evaluating a criterion-referenced test (Livingston and Lewis, 1995). How to apply criterion-referenced assessment The logic of criterion-referenced assessment is say what you want students to be able to do (learning objectives), teach them to do it (through lectures, tutorials, and learning activities), and then see if they can do it (Biggs, 2003).

Thus, it is about alignment. For criterion-referenced assessment to work, it is necessary to be clear about what your students should be learning in terms of qualities or performance criteria that define the grading categories and then to devise assessment tasks that will tell you how well students meet the criteria (Biggs, 2003). The first task is a matter of setting learning objectives. Learning objectives are statements of what you expect your students to learn as a result of studying your unit. In other words, what should they be able to do at the end that they could not do before they commenced the unit.

It

is a focus on student performance not on how you teach! The use of action verb within Bloom’s taxonomy that has been used to write a learning objective statement inherently establishes the level of performance you are seeking in respect of that objective. According to Connoley (2004) criterion referenced assessment is carried out against previously specified yardsticks (criteria). Where a grade is assigned, it is assigned on the basis of the performance standard the student has achieved on each of the criteria. Criteria are the dimensions along which you judge how well a student has carried out the assessment task (yardsticks).

For example, an essay may be judged on the following criteria: knowledge of subject material, the appropriateness of the literature cited, the quality of the argument, and the quality of expression. Oral presentations may be judged on the following criteria: knowledge of subject material, ability to answer or respond to questions, structure of presentation, use of audio/visual material, pace and timing, and delivery. An obvious disadvantage of criterion-referenced tests is that they cannot measure progress of the population as a whole, only where individuals fall within the whole.

Thus, only measuring against a fixed goal can be used to measure the success of an educational reform programme which seeks to raise the achievement of all students against new standards which seek to assess skills beyond choosing among multiple choices. Critics of criterion-referenced tests point out that judges set bookmarks around items of varying difficulty without considering whether the items actually are compliant with grade level content standards or are developmentally appropriate. The difficulty level of items themselves, as are the cut-scores to

determine passing levels are also changed from year to year.

Summary This paper has distinguished between norm-referenced measurement and criterion-referenced measurement in the teaching and learning process. The purpose of the paper was to discuss the role of the two approaches in the teaching and learning process. A norm-referenced assessment makes judgements about people, expresses students’ scores in rank order, based on a distribution of scores. Criterion-referenced assessment makes judgements about performance, rather than on people. It assesses the extent to which a student has achieved the intended learning objectives and performance outcomes of a subject.