ES EN
Vol. 20. Núm. 2. - 2014. Páginas 79-87

An introduction to the use of evidence-centered design in test development

[Introducción al diseño centrado en la evidencia en la construcción de tests]

Michael J. Zieky1


1Educational Testing Serv., Princeton, New Jersey, USA


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.003

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe what Evidence-Centered Design (ECD) is and to explain why and how ECD is used in the design and development of tests. The article will be most useful for readers who have some knowledge of traditional test development practices, but who are unfamiliar with ECD. The article begins with descriptions of the major characteristics of ECD, adds a brief note on the origins of ECD, and discusses the relationship of ECD to traditional test development. Next, the article lists the important advantages of using ECD with an emphasis on the validity of the inferences made about test takers on the basis of their scores. The article explains the nature and purpose of the "layers" or stages of the ECD test design and development process: 1) domain analysis; 2) domain modeling; 3) conceptual assessment framework; 4) assessment implementation; and 5) assessment delivery. Some observations about my experience with the early application of ECD for those who plan to begin using ECD, a brief conclusion, and some recommendations for further reading end the article. 

 

Resumen

El objetivo de este trabajo es describir qué es y explicar por qué y cómo se utiliza el Diseño Centrado en la Evidencia (DCE) para diseñar y construir tests. Este trabajo está pensado especialmente para personas que ya estén algo familiarizadas con las prácticas tradicionales de construcción de tests pero que desconozcan el DCE. Comienza con una descripción de las características fundamentales del DCE, continua con un breve apunte acerca de su origen y analiza su relación con la práctica tradicional en la construcción de tests. A continuación, se indican las ventajas que conlleva la utilización del DCE, resaltando su impacto en la validez de las inferencias realizadas sobre los sujetos en base a sus puntuaciones en los tests. En el artículo se explica la naturaleza y el objetivo de las 'capas' o etapas en el proceso de diseño y construcción de tests con el DCE: 1) análisis del dominio, 2) modelado del dominio, 3) marco conceptual de la evaluación, 4) implementación de la evaluación y 5) administración de la evaluación. Para terminar, se ofrecen algunos comentarios acerca de la experiencia del autor en la aplicación del DCE para aquellos que estén pensando en empezara utilizarlo, junto a una breve conclusión y alguna recomendación acerca de lecturas adicionales sobre el tema. 

 

References
 
Almond et al., 2002
 
Almond, R. G., Steinberg, L. S., & Mislevy, R. J. (2002). Enhancing the design and delivery of assessment systems: A four-process architecture. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment , 1 (5). Available from http://www.jtla.org.
American, 2014
 
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Bejar, 2011
 
Bejar, I. (2011). A validity-based approach to quality control and assurance of automated scoring. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18 , 319-341. Retrieved from h t t p & # 5 8 ; & # 4 7;/dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.555329.
Bennett, 2010
 
Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning (CBAL): A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives , 8 , 70-91. doi: 10.1080/15366367.2010.508686.
Deane and Song, 2014
 
P. Deane
Y. Song
A case study in principled assessment design: Designing assessments to measure and support the development of argumentative reading and writing skills
Psicología Educativa
20
2014
99-108
de la Torre and Minchen, 2014
 
J. de la Torre
N. Minchen
Cognitively diagnostic assessments and the cognitive diagnosis model framework
Psicología Educativa
20
2014
89-97
Graf, 2009
 
Graf, E. A. (2009). Defining mathematics competency in the service of cognitively based assessment for grades 6 through 8 (Research Report 09-42). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Hansen et al., 2008
 
Hansen, E. G., Mislevy, R. J., & Steinberg, L. S. (2008). Evidence-centered assessment design for reasoning about accommodations for individuals with disabilities in NAEP reading and math (Research Report 08-38). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Hines, S. (2010). Evidence-centered design: The TOEIC® speaking and writing tests (Re-search Report 10-07). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Huff, 2010
 
K. Huff
The promises and challenges of implementing evidence-centered design in large-scale assessment
Applied Measurement in Education
23
2010
310-24
Huff et al., 2013
 
Huff, K., Alves, C. B., Pellegrino, J., & Kaliski, P. (2013). Using evidence-centered design task models in automatic item generation. In M. J. Gierl & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Automatic item generation Theory and practice (pp. 102-118). New York: Routledge.
Messick, 1989
 
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-104). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Mislevy, 1994
 
Mislevy, R. J. (1994). Evidence and inference in educational assessment. Psychometrika, 59, 439-483.
Mislevy, 2006
 
Mislevy, R. J. (2006). Cognitive psychology and educational assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 257-306). Washington, DC: American Council on Education/Praeger.
Mislevy et al., 2003
 
Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design (Research Report 03-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Mislevy et al., 1999
 
Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., Yan, D., & Steinberg, L. S. (1999). Bayes nets in educational assessment: Where do the numbers come from? In K. B. Laskey & H. Prade (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 437-446). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Mislevy et al., 2010
 
Mislevy, R. J., Bejar, I. I., Bennett, R. E., Haertel, G. D., & Winters, F. I. (2010). Technology supports for assessment design. In B. McGaw, E. Baker, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., volume 8, pp. 56-65). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Mislevy and Haertel, 2006
 
Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing . Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Mislevy et al., 2011
 
Mislevy, R., Haertel, G., Yarnall, L., & Wentland, E. (2011). Evidence-centered task design in test development. In C. Secolsky (Ed.), Measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education (pp. 257-276). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mislevy and Riconscente, 2005
 
Mislevy, R. J., & Riconscente, M. M. (2005). Evidence-centered design: Layers, structures, and terminology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Mislevy et al., 1999a
 
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (1999). Evidence-centered assessment design. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Mislevy et al., 2003a
 
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1 , 3-67.
Mislevy and Yin, 2012
 
Mislevy, R. J., & Yin, C. (2012). Evidence-centered design in language testing. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 208-222). London, England: Routledge.
Pellegrino, 2014
 
Pellegrino, J. W. (2014). Assessment as a positive influence on 21st century teaching and learning: A systems approach to progress. Psicología Educativa, 20, 65-77.
Scalise and Wilson, 2006
 
Scalise, K., & Wilson, M. (2006). Analysis and comparison of automated scoring approaches: Addressing evidence-based assessment principles. In D. M. Williamson, R. J. Mislevy, & I. I. Bejar (Eds.), Automated scoring of complex tasks in computer-based testing (pp. 15-47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sheehan et al., 2007
 
Sheehan, K. M., Kostin, I., & Futagi, Y. (2007). Supporting efficient, evidence-centered item development for the GRE® verbal measure (Research Report 07-29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Stocking and Swanson, 1993
 
Stocking, M., & Swanson, L. (1993). A method for severely constrained item ion in adaptive testing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17 , 277-292.
Tannenbaum et al., 2008
 
Tannenbaum, R. J., Robustelli, S. L., & Baron, P. A. (2008). Evidence-centered design: A lens through which the process of job analysis may be focused to guide the development of knowledge-based content specifications. CLEAR Exam Review, 19, 26-33.
Toulmin et al., 1958
 
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Van Rijn et al., 1958
 
Van Rijn, P. W., Graf, E. A., & Deane, P. (2014). Empirical recovery of argumentation learning progressions in scenario-based assessments of english language arts. Psicología Educativa, 20, 109-115.

Copyright © 2019. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid

© Copyright 2019. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid ContactoPolítica de privacidadPolítica de cookies

Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y conocer sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede acceder a política de cookies para obtener más información.

Aceptar