CRESST assessment tools show feasibility in evaluation data, but reliability and validity information is limited¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1997 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2000: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Evaluation data show the CRESST assessment tools to be feasible, though reliability and validity evidence is limited and further studies are planned. → Chung 1997

Evidence¶

Chung 1997¶

Chung, G. K. W. K., Herl, H. E., Klein, D. C. D., O'Neil, H. F., Jr., & Schacter, J. (1997). Estimate of the Potential Costs and Effectiveness of Scaling Up CRESST Assessment Software. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED418102

q2 · i? · design · r1

The report summarizes its own evaluation work on the integrated simulation tools, stating the "evaluation data for our assessment tools show them to be feasible" while acknowledging limited reliability and validity information. No effect sizes or test statistics are printed.

"In general, the evaluation data for our assessment tools show them to be feasible. However, there is limited reliability and validity information. Such studies are planned."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Caregivers and healthcare workers perceived Family MUAC with two-way SMS as acceptable, cost-saving, appropriate, and feasible — related
• CAT has the potential to be more valid and reliable than non-adaptive tests — related
• Teachers reported validity, subjectivity, and feasibility concerns in assessing communication and digital literacy — related
• Content experts and practitioner reviews supported the content and face validity of the CT–PCK Survey — related