Dual-responsibility framing of low-stakes testing programs¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 4 claims (4 for) · 2 studies (1 review, 1 associational), q1–q2 · 0 of 2 report an effect size · 4 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article frames low-stakes testing programs as carrying a dual responsibility: test developers must both develop and administer a high-quality test that yields valid scores, and motivate examinees to put forth their best effort. Under this framing, motivation is treated as a co-equal design concern alongside psychometric quality, because "unmotivated examinees present a major threat to validity of scores from these types of testing programs." The integrative review uses this framing to organize its examination of the motivational benefits of computerized adaptive tests.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A low-stakes testing context in which examinee effort is not guaranteed by consequences attached to scores

Constraints¶

Target Learners¶

• K-12 and other examinees taking low-stakes tests

Target Learning Objectives¶

• Valid measurement of achievement in low-stakes assessment

Claims¶

• Unmotivated Examinees Threaten Low Stakes Score Validity [+M]
• Low examinee effort is a major threat to valid uses of many test scores [+W]
• CATs can effectively address the validity threat posed by unmotivated examinees in low-stakes testing [+W]
• CATs can have important advantages over conventional tests in identifying instances when examinees exhibit low effort [+W]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

• Computerized adaptive tests (CATs) as a motivational design feature in low-stakes assessment

Key Sources¶

• Steven Wise. (2014). The utility of adaptive testing in addressing the problem of unmotivated examinees. Journal of Computerized Adaptive Testing, 2(1), 1–17. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/the-utility-of-adaptive-testing-in-addressing-the-problem-of-unmotivated-examinees/