Constructing Test Items
By:Steven J. Osterlind
Published on 1997-12-31 by Springer Science & Business Media
Constructing test items for standardized tests of achievement, ability, and aptitude is a task of enormous importance. The interpretability of a test's scores flows directly from the quality of its items and exercises. Concomitant with score interpretability is the notion that including only carefully crafted items on a test is the primary method by which the skilled test developer reduces unwanted error variance, or errors of measurement, and thereby increases a test score's reliability. The aim of this entire book is to increase the test constructor's awareness of this source of measurement error, and then to describe methods for identifying and minimizing it during item construction and later review. Persons involved in assessment are keenly aware of the increased attention given to alternative formats for test items in recent years. Yet, in many writers' zeal to be `curriculum-relevant' or `authentic' or `realistic', the items are often developed seemingly without conscious thought to the interpretations that may be garnered from them. This book argues that the format for such alternative items and exercises also requires rigor in their construction and even offers some solutions, as one chapter is devoted to these alternative formats. This book addresses major issues in constructing test items by focusing on four ideas. First, it describes the characteristics and functions of test items. A second feature of this book is the presentation of editorial guidelines for writing test items in all of the commonly used item formats, including constructed-response formats and performance tests. A third aspect of this book is the presentation of methods for determining the quality of test items. Finally, this book presents a compendium of important issues about test items, including procedures for ordering items in a test, ethical and legal concerns over using copyrighted test items, item scoring schemes, computer-generated items and more.
This Book was ranked at 14 by Google Books for keyword Test.
Book ID of Constructing Test Items's Books is Ia3SGDfbaV0C, Book which was written bySteven J. Osterlindhave ETAG "yCGBs72vpF8"
Book which was published by Springer Science & Business Media since 1997-12-31 have ISBNs, ISBN 13 Code is 9780792380771 and ISBN 10 Code is 0792380770
Reading Mode in Text Status is false and Reading Mode in Image Status is true
Book which have "339 Pages" is Printed at BOOK under CategoryEducation
This Book was rated by Raters and have average rate at ""
This eBook Maturity (Adult Book) status is NOT_MATURE
Book was written in en
eBook Version Availability Status at PDF is true and in ePub is false
Book Preview
Do not you type of loathe how we've joined the decadent stage of Goodreads wherein possibly fifty per cent (or more) of the reviews published by non-teenagers and non-romancers are now naked and unabashed inside their variously effective attempts at being arc, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky? Do not you sort of maple (secretly, in the marrow of your gut's happy druthers) for the good ol'times of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all opinions were uniformly plainspoke Don't you sort of loathe how we have joined the decadent stage of Goodreads when perhaps fifty percent (or more) of the evaluations written by non-teenagers and non-romancers are actually naked and unabashed inside their variously effective efforts at being arc, wry, meta, parodic, confessional, and/or snarky? Do not you kind of maple (secretly, in the marrow of one's gut's merry druthers) for the nice ol'times of Goodreads (known then as GodFearingGoodlyReading.com) when all reviews were uniformly plainspoken, simply functional, unpretentious, and -- above all otherwise -- boring, dull, boring? Don't you sort of hate when persons say'do not you believe in this manner or feel that way'in an effort to goad you equally psychologically and grammatically into agreeing with them? In what of ABBA: I actually do, I actually do, I do(, I do, I do). Properly, as the interwebs is a world in which the past stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the current (and with fetish porn), we are able to review the past in their inviolable presentness anytime we wish. Or at the very least till this website finally tanks. Consider (won't you?) Matt Nieberle's report on Macbeth in their entirety. I've bound it with a heavy rope and drawn it here for the perusal. (Please recognize that many a sic are recommended in the following reviews.) its really complicated and stupid! why cant we be examining like Romeo and Juliet?!?! at the very least that book is good! There you've it. Refreshingly, not really a evaluation prepared in among the witch's comments or alluding to Hillary and Statement Clinton or discussing the reviewer's first period. Just a primal shout unleashed in to the dark wilderness of the cosmos.Yes, Mr. Nieberle is (probably) an adolescent, but I admire his capability to strongarm the temptation to be clever or ironic. (Don't you?) He speaks the native language of the idk generation having an economy and a clarity that renders his convictions much more emphatic. Here's MICHAEL's review of the exact same play. You may'know'MICHAEL; he is the'Problems Architect'only at Goodreads. (A problematic title itself in so it implies that he designs problems... which can be the case, for several I know.) This book shouldn't be required reading... reading plays that you don't want to see is awful. Reading a play kinda sucks in the first place, if it absolutely was supposed to be read, then it will be a novel, not just a play. Together with that the teach had us students browse the play aloud (on person for each character for a couple pages). None folks had see the play before. None folks wanted to read it (I made the mistake of taking the'easy'english class for 6 years). The teacher picked students that appeared to be they weren't paying attention. All of this compounded to create me more or less hate reading classics for something like 10 years (granted macbeth alone wasn't the problem). I also hate iambic pentameter. Pure activism there. STOP the mandatory reading of plays. It's wrong, morally and academically. And yes it can really fuck up your GPA. There's no wasteful extravagance in this editorial... no fanfare, no fireworks, no linked photos of half-naked, oiled-up, big-bosomed starlets, no invented dialogues between the author and the review-writer. It's simple and memorable. Being required to read plays is wrong, and if you require anyone, under duress, to learn a play then you definitely have sinned and are likely to hell, in the event that you believe in hell. If not, you're going to the DMV. I'm also fed up with whatever you smug spelling snobs. You damnable fascists together with your new-fangled dictionaries and your fancy-schmancy spell check. Sometimes the passionate immediacy of an email overcomes its spelling limitations. Also, in this age whenever we are taught to respect each other's differences, it seems offensively egocentric and mean-spirited to expect others tokowtow on your petty linguistic rules. Inspired term will probably totally free itself regardless of how you are probably trying for you to shackle it. That is definitely your current signal, Aubrey. Throughout my own viewpoint, a engage in Macbeth has been the worste peice actually written by Shakespeare, this also is saying considerably thinking of also i understand his / her Romeo and also Juliet. Ontop associated with it can be previously astounding story, unrealistic personas along with absolutly discusting list of morals, Shakespeare freely molds Lovely lady Macbeth as being the accurate vilian within the play. Thinking about she is mearly the actual express within a corner spherical plus Macbeth him self is actually truely carrying out this hideous criminal offenses, like homicide and also scam, I really don't see why it's so quick to assume in which Macbeth could be inclined to try and do great in lieu of malignant only when his spouse were more possitive. I do believe that this enjoy is definitely uterally unrealistic. Although the subsequent is undoubtedly this ne and also really regarding classic e-book reviewing. While succinct as well as without unproductive trend to coyness as well as cuteness, Jo's examine alludes to the anger thus profound that it must be inexpressible. One particular imagines some Signet Basic Updates broken in to so that you can pieces with pruning shears throughout Jo's vicinity. I dislike this play. It's of which I cannot actually supply you with virtually any analogies or similes in respect of just how much I actually despise it. An incrementally snarkier style may have said something like...'I personally don't like this enjoy like a simile Could not appear with.' Never Jo. The lady talks any live, undecorated real truth unfit regarding figurative language. As well as there is nothing wrong with that. After inside an awesome while, when you're getting neck-deep throughout dandified pomo hijinks, it can be a nice wallow from the pig coop you might be itchin'for. Thanks, Jo. Everyone loves both you and your useless greedy during similes of which can't solution this bilious hatred in your heart. You will be quarry, and also I'm yours. Figuratively conversing, associated with course. And after this here i will discuss my personal critique: Macbeth by Bill Shakespeare is best fictional do the job from the Uk terminology, in addition to anybody who disagrees can be an asshole plus a dumbhead.
No comments:
Post a Comment