purpose of standardized testing essay

EXPLAINED: What Are Standardized Tests and Why Do We Need Them?

Jun 8, 2021 12:00:00 AM

by Ed Post Staff

Few education topics get parents, teachers, and school leaders more riled up than discussions about using results from student tests to measure the quality of state education systems, districts, schools, and sometimes even teachers. But what exactly are standardized tests , what are they used for, and why are there so many of them? 

What makes a test “standardized”?

A test is standardized when all the students taking the test have to respond to the same set of carefully selected questions. This allows people who look at the results to make comparisons among groups of students. Questions on these tests tend to be multiple choice or true-false because that raises the chances that results are fair and objective, with less possibility for bias or favoritism in scoring the answers. 

The process of creating a standardized test and interpreting the results requires a lot of different expertise in curriculum, child development, cultural and linguistic differences, statistics and a field of study called psychometrics.

Why do students have to take so many tests?

When you think about it, standardized tests are part of our lives and have been for a long time . When you take a baby to a doctor, they assess the baby’s health by using a “standardized” checklist: How does the baby’s weight compare with others the same age and are they meeting developmental milestones? When you apply for a driver’s license, your state motor vehicle bureau requires you to take a standardized test to see if you know the rules of the road. When you apply for citizenship, you take a standardized test to see if you understand the basics of American governance. 

Likewise, standardized tests are extremely useful for educators and their institutions to gauge progress and meet the needs of students. For instance, half of U.S. states require a kindergarten readiness test. When students apply to college, they usually take the ACT or the SAT (although some colleges are now dropping this requirement in the interest of making admissions more equitable). If you want to go to law school, you take the LSAT. If you want to go to medical school you take the MCAT. There’s even a test called PISA used by 79 countries that allows comparisons between national education systems. (In 2018, the U.S. ranked 13th in reading and 36th in math.)

However, there can be too much of a good thing—including too many tests. That’s because the assessments your child takes over the school year serve different purposes. For instance, a teacher might give a social studies test to see if students have absorbed the material he’s taught in that unit; this allows him to check if there’s a need for review. A principal might decide to test all the students in a grade if there’s been a pattern of lower proficiency in math; this allows her to ensure the instructional materials are working or if teachers need additional training. Some school districts use standardized diagnostic tests several times a year to drill down on what individual students are learning, like NWEA’s MAP tests or Curriculum Associates’ iReady tests . Also, federal law requires states to test students in grades 3-8 once a year in reading and math, plus once in high school. 

Why is the federal government involved in standardized tests?

While America has some wonderful schools, we’ve struggled for a long time to raise achievement levels. In 1983 a bipartisan group of educators and officials wrote a report called “ A Nation at Risk ” that remarked, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

Not much has changed. Tom Loveless, an education expert, says, “What surprises me is how stable U.S. performance is [on PISA]. The scores have always been mediocre.”

Another standardized test given to representative groups of students (called the National Assessment of Educational Progress or the “Nation’s Report Card”) finds that two-thirds of children are not proficient readers.

America’s lagging status behind other first-world countries prompted the federal government to start mandating standardized tests in order to improve teaching and learning. A 1965 law called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which tied extra funding for disadvantaged students to state compliance, was reauthorized in 2003 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). For states to be eligible for that extra federal funding, they had to annually assess student learning through standardized tests (grades 3-8 and once in high school). They also had to report out test results of historically-neglected groups, like students with disabilities, English-language learners, and low-income children. Each group—as well as schools, districts, and states—was supposed to meet a benchmark called “Adequate Yearly Progress,” or AYP.

Why are standardized tests so controversial?

They didn’t used to be controversial! But they became so when the federal government got involved and American educators and leaders became concerned about the college and career-readiness of high school graduates.

Many point to No Child Left Behind as the moment that standardized tests became controversial. Sometimes transparency is painful—those test results quickly showed enormous gaps in proficiency between students of color and their white peers, for instance. 

In response, we started taking student achievement—and the gaps in achievement between rich and poor kids, Black and white kids–more seriously. Instead of just filing results away, states began using the test results to evaluate the quality of schools, districts, state departments of education, and even teachers. This led to a series of questions:

• Why is this school turning out kids who do poorly in math while this other school’s students are math wizards?
• Are the textbooks at fault?
• Is it the principal?
• Is one school supporting teachers better than the other school?
• Does one school have more homeless students or more students with disabilities or more English-language learners?

In some cases, teachers and administrators felt unfairly attacked. Parents sometimes were unhappily surprised to see that their children weren’t learning as much as they thought. There can be a perception—sometimes true—that standardized tests are used to unfairly punish beloved teachers or administrators, or that the test results are denying students coveted opportunities, like admission to specialized schools or programs.

An example of the overly-intrusive nature of NCLB was the absurdly ambitious goal of 100% proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year. In response, states lowered standards and made tests easier to pass so they would still receive federal funding. Additionally, NCLB placed unrealistic demands on schools serving high-needs communities, and led to what many educators described as a toxic culture of “drill and kill” test-prep that took much of the joy out of school and learning. 

For these reasons and more, in 2015 the law was reauthorized again, and No Child Left Behind became the Every Student Succeeds Act , which pared back the federal role by removing annual benchmarks and adding flexibility for states to decide how to hold themselves accountable. 

But states still have to share individual district and school test results with the public in order to shine a light on which schools are doing right by students and which are falling short. With this information, the hope is that we can raise achievement levels across the country, especially for historically underserved students.

Are standardized tests racist?

America is beset by structural inequities and one of the most dangerous and pervasive inequities is racism, which leaks into all aspects of life, from poorly maintained homes to sub-par medical care to food insecurity to fewer resources for schools that serve students of color. Standardized tests are no different: for example, a century ago an American psychologist named Lewis Terman erroneously and offensively claimed that I.Q. tests showed that African Americans, Spanish-Indian, and Mexican people were not as intelligent as white people. 

There are other ways tests can be biased. There was a famous example in the 1990s when an SAT question asked for the best analogy between “runner” and “marathon.” The answer was “oarsman” and “regatta,” vocabulary that might only be familiar to wealthy teenagers. This was a prime example of socio-economic bias.

But standardized tests can also be a way to overcome inherent bias. When teacher perceptions are the sole criteria for student access into gifted and talented programs, Black and brown students can be overlooked. Research shows that when standardized testing is used instead, more students of color are selected for accelerated learning. 

Meanwhile, testing companies have initiated programs to create tests and learning materials that are culturally, racially, and socio-economically sensitive. For example, in 2021, Pearson, a major textbook publisher and standardized testing vendor, published editorial guidelines addressing race, ethnicity, equity and inclusion.

Standardized tests can indeed perpetuate racial inequity and system racial bias. Yet without them, we’re at the mercy of subjective assessments. That’s why the National Urban League led a coalition of civil rights, social justice, disability rights, and education advocacy groups to urge U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to require states to maintain their schedules of standardized testing during the coronavirus pandemic. They wrote,

To understand the effects of the COVID-19 crisis and ensure that this pandemic does not undermine the futures of students across the country, we must collect accurate, objective, and comparable data that speaks to the quality of education in this moment, including data from statewide assessments.

What do standardized tests have to do with civil rights?

Civil rights has long focused on issues of equity and equality. In the world of education, equity means there are systems in place to ensure that every child has an equal chance for success, regardless of their family income or the color of their skin. 

There are many ways to see that these aspirations remain unrealized. But standardized test results are one of the clearest and most compelling indicators that civil rights advocates can use to show the glaring inequities in our current education system.

One example: A report by brightbeam found that in San Francisco, 70% of white students are proficient in math, compared to only 12% of Black students, a 58-point gap. This pattern—white students vastly outperforming Black students—is rampant in many parts of the country and underscores America’s challenge of raising achievement and infusing equity into our schools.

If you want to see the gaps in how your state and/or city is serving students of different races, visit Why Proficiency Matters , an easy online tool for revealing racial proficiency gaps (sometimes called “achievement gaps”).

In order to narrow these vast disparities we need standardized assessments. They provide a clear way to measure how well our school systems serve kids most at risk. The information we get from those tests gives states and school districts the data they need to create more equitable systems. 

This practice is right in line with the goals of the civil rights movement: to give all students equal educational opportunities and protection under the law, regardless of race or religion or income level. That’s why everyone from this teacher in Kentucky to Michelle Obama to Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump call education the most important civil rights issue of our time.

Why does the federal government want us to test every child? Can't we just test a sample of kids to see how a school district is doing?

We already do that through the so-called “ Nation’s Report Card ,” which is given every other year to a sample of students in each state. It’s very useful! But kids not tested by NAEP can fall through the cracks and NAEP doesn’t give us the detailed information on an individual student’s proficiency available from more focused and inclusive tests. 

Importantly, NAEP has no consequences for poor performance. It is meant to be a dipstick on the overall academic health of our country, state by state. This ensures that the results are genuine and comparable. 

So how do we make sure states and districts actually work to improve the education they provide for underserved students? That’s where the federal government comes in. After all, our current national education law is called the “Every Student Succeeds Act,” not the “Some Students Succeed Act.” According to this law, if a state has too many students who aren’t meeting expectations in math or reading, then the federal government requires that state to identify districts, schools, and particular groups of students who need more support. 

If states only tested a portion of kids, there would be no reliable way to identify which schools and districts need to improve. More importantly, there would be no reliable way to identify which marginalized groups of students weren’t getting the level of support and instruction they required to thrive. That’s why each state must set ambitious goals for students to grow academically—even those who are farthest behind—and report out the progress made towards those results, broken down by race, income, and disability.

And how are these schools or districts or groups of students identified? Through standardized tests. Sure, no test is perfect. But when looking at a huge system, you can only see general trends. It’s easy to say, “all our kids are fine,” even when some of them aren’t. 

Can we really trust these tests to give an accurate measurement of student learning?

No single test can measure a single student’s proficiency in math and reading. That’s never been the claim, and is why we don’t use state standardized assessments for your child’s report card grades, for instance. But these tests can look at different groups of students within a school and help school leaders learn which students are struggling or whether instructional changes need to be made. 

In the education policy world, this idea of requiring schools to make improvements when the standardized testing data shows they are underperforming is called “accountability.” And it is a vital component to civil rights. We must recognize the problem and then take action, whether you’re speaking of Rosa Parks sitting in the whites-only section of the bus or education activists in Nashville who are addressing a literacy crisis where seven out of ten third graders can’t read at grade level.

Let’s say your child’s elementary school gives all fifth graders the state reading test and discovers that this group is performing more poorly than last year’s fifth graders. Is that because there are more students this year with learning disabilities? Were there too many snow days? Did the district just implement a new reading program that perhaps is slowing achievement down? Are teachers not receiving as much guidance as they had in previous years? Did the school raise class sizes last year so that students aren’t getting more attention? 

Results culled from standardized tests can narrow down the reasons and, thus, point educators towards the right solutions. Without the test, teachers and parents wouldn’t know there was a problem. If you can’t recognize a problem, you can’t solve it. 

As Katrina Miller of Educational Partnerships explains,

We must overcome the fear of data in education. Having as much robust data as possible only helps us better understand student needs. Doctors order full bloodwork for a check-up so they have a picture of how the whole human system is working. We need this same mindset in education.

I trust my child’s teacher to know when my kid is having problems. Why stress him out with a test?

Our teachers definitely have great intuition about student progress. But teachers have to work within a much larger system that they can’t control. It’s really hard to get big institutions—like school districts or even state education departments—to make changes, especially when those same institutions have been under-serving the same groups of children for generations. Changing those systems requires the hard statistical evidence provided by standardized tests. 

It takes hard work to improve systems. And even though your child may be fine, there’s a lot riding on our national efforts to raise the levels of academic achievement for students who have long been failed by our schools.

What impact has the COVID-19 pandemic had on standardized testing?

Many people agree that forcing kids to take tests during a plague-ridden year would be pointless and even cruel. Indeed, early in the pandemic, the Trump administration allowed states to waive all spring standardized tests for 2020. 

The following year, many expected the Biden Administration to do the same thing, since large numbers of students were still learning remotely and schools had struggled all year to keep pace with learning. However, the Biden administration heeded the concerns of civil rights and educational justice groups, requiring that states continue testing , precisely because it was such a challenging year and so many children would have fallen behind. 

However, states received tremendous flexibility in how and who they tested in 2021, so in truth, we are losing two years of data. This no doubt produces huge obstacles for districts that seek to diagnose the effectiveness of their schools and curricula, and removes a critical tool from the advocacy toolbelt of the civil rights sector.

What are the opportunities for activism?

• UNDERSTAND the tests kids are taking and why.

Become an informed consumer. Information is power. In order to advocate effectively, you must understand the purpose of particular tests and how your school will use the results. Is it to drive instruction? Is it to measure state trends? Is it to fulfill federal regulations? 

Under the Biden Administration’s American Rescue Plan , states will divide up $125 billion for K-12 schools to help students catch up after a year of school closures. One of the strings attached is your state has to come up with a plan to assess student progress during this pandemic year. No hiding from learning loss! We need the data in order to create plans that will address the crisis. So go to school board meetings and write or call your legislators, demanding that your state’s assessment plan for 2021—whether it be using substitute tests, delaying the usual state tests, or using shortened versions of tests—be implemented with integrity, a focus on serving students and families, and a fearless quest for accurate information.

• SHARE the message that standardized testing helps uphold civil rights.

Even if you are unconcerned about your own child’s progress, remember that without standardized testing we wouldn’t be able to measure the proficiency gaps that highlight vast inequities within our public education system. Our schools are failing to justly serve large groups of children; in this sense, supporting standardized testing is part of the work of ensuring child justice. Undertake initiatives to raise your community’s comfort level with testing and their understanding of its powerful role in promoting educational equity.

• PUSH your state, district or school to make standardized testing better. 

Current standardized tests, while vital for improving learning gaps, are stuck in the Stone Age. In order to minimize the time and money spent on assessments, state education systems need to invest in innovating our testing infrastructure. The technology is there to automatically grade essay questions but we don’t use it. The technology is there to customize test questions to individual students’ level of proficiency but we don’t use it. The technology is there to turn around test results within 24 hours but we don’t use it.

Activists can demand their state leaders invest in innovation to make tests less stressful and more useful for students, teachers, parents, schools and states.

Ed Post Staff

What's an IEP and How to Ensure Your Child's Needs Are Met?

If you have a child with disabilities, you’re not alone: According to the latest data, over 7 million American schoolchildren — 14% of all students ages 3-21 — are classified as eligible for special...

Seeking Justice for Black and Brown Children? Focus on the Social Determinants of Health

Laura Waters

The fight for educational equity has never been just about schools. The real North Star for this work is providing opportunities for each child to thrive into adulthood. This means that our advocacy...

Why Math Identity Matters

Lane Wright

The story you tell yourself about your own math ability tends to become true. This isn’t some Oprah aphorism about attracting what you want from the universe. Well, I guess it kind of is, but...

Follow our social media and newsletter to take action.

Support education equity.

Your donations support the voices who challenge decision makers to provide the learning opportunities all children need to thrive. 

• Take Action
• Privacy Policy

Ed Post is the flagship website platform of brightbeam, a 501(c3) network of education activists and influencers demanding a better education and a brighter future for every child.

© 2020–2024 brightbeam. All rights reserved.

• Grades 6-12
• School Leaders

Learn How to Support Stressed and Anxious Students.

What Is Standardized Testing? The Pros and Cons and More

They’re used a lot in education, but what exactly are they?

Standardized testing is a hot-button topic, one that’s fraught with controversy. While these assessments have been around for decades, the increase in testing in the last 20 years or so has brought the issue to the forefront. As parents consider opting their students out and some states seek to do away with them , it’s worth asking: What exactly is standardized testing, and why do we focus on it so heavily?

What is standardized testing?

Source: StateImpact

In a standardized test, every student responds to the same questions (or questions from same question bank), under the exact same set of conditions. They are often made up of multiple-choice questions and are given on paper or (more commonly these days) on a computer. Experts choose the questions carefully to test a specific set of skills and knowledge.

Large groups of students take the same standardized tests, not just those in the same class or school. This gives people the chance to compare results across a specific group, usually children of the same age or grade level.

What are some types of standardized tests?

There are different types of standardized tests, including:

• Diagnostic test: These often help determine if a student qualifies for special education services. They can test academic, physical and fine motor skills, social and behavioral skills, and more. Examples might be a hearing test or a learning disability test.
• Achievement test: This type of test measures a student’s current strengths and weaknesses in a particular area, almost always academic subjects. Examples include the SAT, the Iowa Assessments, and the tests many states use at certain grade levels.

See a list of popular standardized tests here.

How are standardized tests scored?

Each individual standardized test has its own scoring mechanism. Usually, a student earns a score based on the number of correct answers they give. Those scores can be analyzed in two different ways: criterion-referenced and norm-referenced.

Criterion-Referenced Scoring

Source: Criterion-Based Testing/Renaissance

In this type of scoring, a student’s results are measured against predetermined standards, not against other test takers’ results. Their scores might help educators place them in categories like “proficient,” “advanced,” or “deficient.”

Advanced Placement (AP) exams are an excellent example of criterion-referenced tests. Students earn a score on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the highest. They earn these scores based on preset standards. Students aren’t ranked in comparison to one another.

Another example would be a driver’s license test. Students pass or fail based on their answers, with no reference to how others score. Criterion-referenced tests help measure a student’s personal achievements, regardless of their age or grade level.

Norm-Referenced Scoring

Source: Norm-Based Testing/Renaissance

In norm-referenced tests, students are ranked based on their scores. This places them into “percentiles,” which measure how they performed compared to their peers. If a student is in the 58th percentile, it means they scored higher than 58% of all the students who took the exam. It’s usually better to rank in a higher percentile.

Most state standardized tests are norm-referenced, as are IQ tests. A student can perform well on a test, but if their peers performed better, they will still be ranked in a lower percentile. These scores are ranked on a bell curve.

You can think of norm-referenced tests the same way you might think of a growth chart at the doctor’s office. Doctors know the average height for a child at a certain age. They can then compare a specific child to those averages, to determine if they are shorter or taller than average.

Learn more about criterion-referenced vs. norm-referenced tests here.

What are standardized tests used for?

Standardized tests are meant to give educators a chance to determine how effective their instruction strategies are overall. They can also help identify strengths and weaknesses in students, so these students can receive individualized attention as needed. Many consider them an important way to be sure all students across a state or even the nation are learning to the same basic educational standards.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 first required schools to use standardized tests. This act provided funding to schools to ensure every student had access to equal education opportunities, and used standardized tests to determine how schools were performing against national averages. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ramped up standardized testing even further. It tied some federal funding to student test scores, and raised the stakes for schools dramatically.

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 currently requires annual statewide tests in reading/language arts and mathematics to all students in grades 3-8 and once during the high school years. States also must test on science at least once in each of grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.

What are the benefits to standardized testing?

Source: ViewSonic

Proponents of standardized tests consider these factors to be among the benefits:

• Standardization of quality curriculum: By requiring standardized tests, schools across the country can be sure they’re teaching the basic skills and knowledge every student needs at specific ages. Experts determine the skills and knowledge they feel will equip students to succeed in the larger world after they graduate.
• Equality and equity: Lower-income populations have long been underserved by traditional educational systems. By requiring all schools to meet the same educational standards, as measured by tests, education becomes more equitable for all.
• Removal of bias: When computers or impartial graders score tests objectively, it eliminates potential bias. (This assumes the test writers created non-biased questions.)
• Measure of effective instruction: High-ranking schools may be able to share their instruction methods with those who rank lower, encouraging ingenuity and cooperation across the system. Tests can determine where teachers may need more training, or where additional funding could help schools improve their programs.

Learn about more potential benefits of standardized testing here.

What are some drawbacks of standardized testing?

Source: NEA

Despite the potential benefits, the backlash against increased testing has become louder in recent years . Teachers, students, and parents worry about many factors, including:

Over-Testing

In a nationwide study of the largest urban schools , students took an average of 112 standardized tests from kindergarten through graduation. Students may spend as many as 19 hours or more taking these tests each year. And this doesn’t include time spent on test prep or practice tests.

What’s more, teachers often note that standardized tests don’t match up with their textbooks or other materials. Sometimes they don’t even match the state educational standards. And even when they do, the standards may not be particularly relevant or useful for every student.

Learn why teachers wish they had more involvement in standardized test development.

Test Anxiety

Taking a test is never a laid-back process, and never more so than during standardized tests. Students are scrutinized from all angles to make sure they don’t cheat. Teachers have to perform that scrutiny and often undergo some of it themselves.

There’s so much pressure to do well on these tests that kids can feel like it’s a life-or-death situation. Their anxiety goes through the roof, and even those who know the material thoroughly may not perform well under the pressure. And more and more districts evaluate teachers based at least in part on student test scores. This can affect their salaries and chances for advancement.

More Kids Than Ever Are Dealing With Test Anxiety, and We Need to Help

Lost Instructional Time

With days lost to taking tests, not to mention all the time spent preparing, other educational aspects fall by the wayside. Teachers lose the chance to give students more meaningful hands-on experiences. They eliminate unique and engaging projects or activities that don’t directly relate to items included on tests. As the saying goes, they “teach to the test,” and nothing more.

Read what one teacher would really like to tell their students about benchmark testing.

Lack of Useful Data

Many teachers will tell you that they can predict almost exactly how their students will score on the standardized assessments. In other words, these tests aren’t giving them any new information. Teachers already know which students are struggling and which have mastered the necessary skills and knowledge. Generated data rarely seems to provide any useful direct benefits to teachers or students.

See the 7 Biggest Complaints Teachers Have About Testing—and How to Fix Them.

Still have more questions about standardized testing? Join the WeAreTeachers HELPLINE group on Facebook to chat with other educators.

Plus, these test-taking strategies will help students pass with ease ..

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. 5335 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32256

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Chiropr Educ
• v.33(2); 2019 Oct

A primer on standardized testing: History, measurement, classical test theory, item response theory, and equating

This article presents health science educators and researchers with an overview of standardized testing in educational measurement. The history, theoretical frameworks of classical test theory, item response theory (IRT), and the most common IRT models used in modern testing are presented.

A narrative overview of the history, theoretical concepts, test theory, and IRT is provided to familiarize the reader with these concepts of modern testing. Examples of data analyses using different models are shown using 2 simulated data sets. One set consisted of a sample of 2000 item responses to 40 multiple-choice, dichotomously scored items. This set was used to fit 1-parameter logistic (PL) model, 2PL, and 3PL IRT models. Another data set was a sample of 1500 item responses to 10 polytomously scored items. The second data set was used to fit a graded response model.

Model-based item parameter estimates for 1PL, 2PL, 3PL, and graded response are presented, evaluated, and explained.

Conclusion:

This study provides health science educators and education researchers with an introduction to educational measurement. The history of standardized testing, the frameworks of classical test theory and IRT, and the logic of scaling and equating are presented. This introductory article will aid readers in understanding these concepts.

INTRODUCTION

In the 20th century, the concept of public protection dictated implementation of licensing laws to those professions having a direct relationship to public health and safety. 1 A plethora of discipline-specific prelicensure standardized assessment instruments (tests) exists to ensure compliance with the disciplinary standards. In the chiropractic profession, every year thousands of students take the prelicensure Part I, II, III, and IV examinations of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. As with any examination, some students feel that these standardized tests are unfair and have little relevance to clinical practice. Even faculty members often understand little about the boards. This article aims to provide an introduction to the world of standardized assessment not only for chiropractic educators but also for any health sciences educator or educational researcher.

OVERVIEW AND SIMULATED ANALYSES

History of standardized testing.

The early history of standardized testing goes back several centuries. In the 3rd century BCE in imperial China, to qualify for civil service, Chinese aristocrats were examined for their proficiency in music, archery, horsemanship, calligraphy, arithmetic, and ceremonial knowledge. Later, the examinations tested knowledge of civil law, military affairs, agriculture, geography, composition, and poetry. 2 , 3 Those who passed these exams were qualified to serve the Chinese emperor and his family. The exams were accompanied by an atmosphere of solemnity and attention to the young nobles who dared to be scrutinized for the prestigious positions. The topics of the exams were frequently provided by the emperor, and he often examined the applicants during the final stage of the competition.

In the late 1880s, Francis Galton was inspired by the work of his cousin, Charles Darwin, regarding the origin of species and became interested in the hereditary basis of intelligence and the measurement of human ability. Galton developed the theoretical bases of testing—the application of a series of identical tests to a large number of individuals and the statistical processing of the results. 4 In 1904, Alfred Binet, a Parisian with a doctorate in experimental psychology, was commissioned by the French ministry of education to study schoolchildren who were developmentally behind their peers. His task was to develop a method to identify children who were not benefiting from inclusion in regular classrooms and required special education. 5 For this purpose, Binet and his associate, Theodore Simon, designed and administered a 30-item instrument arranged by difficulty that tested ability for judgment, understanding, and reasoning. 1

The field of testing developed rapidly during World War I (1914–1918), when the problem of professional selection for the needs of the army and military production became a priority. During that time, leading psychologists organized the Army Alpha Examination to test army recruits. 6 Their success further inspired psychologists to advocate for civilian testing. During the 20th century, large-scale assessment in the United States became a necessity for college admissions and school accountability. The reliance on standardized tests for college admission was a response to the increasing number of students applying to colleges, and it became a tool to tighten the gates in the face of limited resources. 7

In the 21st century, standardized tests constitute an inseparable part of American culture. Assessment instruments are administered in a wide range of settings: K–12, college admission, academic progression, professional licensure, clinical credentialing, industrial, forensic, and many more. “Gatekeepers of America's meritocracy—educators, academic institutions, and employers—have used test scores to label people as bright or not bright, as worthy academically or not worthy.” 8 The study of measurement processes and the methods used to produce scores in testing evolved into a specialized discipline— psychometrics , a combination of education, psychology, and statistics. 9

Critique of Standardized Tests

As the use of standardized tests for high-stakes exams increased, so did the critique of their use. 10 Counsell 11 conducted a case study exploring the effect of the high-stakes accountability system on the lives of students and teachers. The findings revealed that the culture of testing introduces a continuum of fear and ethical and moral dilemmas related to the pressure experienced by instructors when schools use test scores as a measure of accountability. Often, instructors decontextualize the material to the students with an intention to artificially inflate the test scores. 12 Such a phenomenon is known to researchers as “teaching to the test” and is often controlled for by psychometric procedures. 13

Kohn 14 claimed that admission tests (such as the SAT and ACT) are “not very effective as predictors of future academic performance, even in the freshman year of college, much less as predictors of professional success.” Zwick and Himelfarb 15 predicted 1st-year undergraduate grade-point average (FYGPA) in 34 colleges from high school GPA (HSGPA) and SAT scores using linear regression models. The average R 2 for these regression models was .226 (this coefficient indicates the amount of variance in the regression outcome explained by the linear combination of the predictors). However, in most of the models, the HSGPA was the predictor that accounted for the majority of variance. Zwick and Himelfarb stated, “The only substantial increase in R 2 values occurred when SAT scores are added to a prediction equation that included self-reported HSGPA.”

Furthermore, the study highlighted the overprediction (the predicted outcomes were higher than actual) of FYGPA for African American and Latino students and the underprediction (the predicted outcomes were lower than actual) for Caucasian and Asian students when high school grades and SAT scores were used. Zwick and Himelfarb concluded that these errors in prediction were partially attributed to high school socioeconomic status—African American and Latino students are more likely than Caucasian students to attend high schools with fewer resources.

Measurement and Classification

Two processes are involved when a test is administered—measurement and classification. Measurement is the process of assigning numerical values to a phenomenon. This is a thorny process because numbers are used to categorize the phenomenon, and numerical scales hold qualities such as differentiation (1 is different from 2), order (2 is higher than 1), equality of intervals (the interval between 1 and 2 is equal to the interval between 2 and 3), and a 0 point, which is not always a true absence of value. By assigning numerical values to categories, the rules associated with numbers are carried over to the properties of the measured phenomenon and may not always correspond to the actual properties of the measured objects.

Stevens 16 developed a hierarchy of measurement scales: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. The nominal scale is a system of measurement where numbers are used for the purpose of differentiation only. For example, the numerical part of a street address or apartment number is numbered on the nominal scale. The number on the jersey of a football player is used to differentiate the player from others, and it too is on the nominal scale. The categorical coding of most demographic variables, such as gender, ethnicity, and political party affiliation, constitutes nominal measures. 17 Since nominal enumeration is used only to distinguish categories, the numbers assigned to the categories do not follow any order or presume interval equality. The nominal scale is the most rudimentary form of measurement.

The ordinal scale is a measurement scheme where, in addition to simple differentiation (the attribute specified by the nominal scale), the numbers represent a rank order of the measured phenomenon. Examples of ordinal measures are rankings in the Olympic Games, progressions of the spiciness of a dish in a restaurant (mild, spicy, and very spicy), military rank, birth order, and class rank. Another example of an ordinal measure is the emoji-face pain scale commonly used in health care. An ordinal scale establishes the order of categories but lacks the ability of comparison between the categories' intervals.

The subsequent scale in Stevens's hierarchy is the interval scale, which, in addition to differentiation and rank order, establishes the property of interval equality. On this scale, the intervals between adjacent points are presumed to be equal. One example of the interval scale is a number line, where, going from left to right, each subsequent number is higher in rank, and the intervals between adjacent numbers are equal across the entire domain of the line. Another example is a temperature scale measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit. In the social sciences, items commonly measured on the Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” for the purposes of statistical analysis of opinions, are assumed to be on the interval scale.

The highest measurement scale in the hierarchy is the ratio scale. In addition to the properties established by the nominal, ordinal, and interval scales, a ratio scale has a true 0 point (complete absence of value). Neither the number line nor the Celsius or Fahrenheit temperature scales have an absolute 0 point. The 0 on the number line is nothing more than a separation between the negative and positive numbers and can be rescaled with a simple linear transformation. The 0 on the temperature scale (in Celsius) is also not an absence of value but rather a point at which water becomes ice. An example of a ratio scale is the Kelvin temperature scale, where 0 indicates a complete absence of temperature.

Every assessment is designed to measure and classify the test takers' performance in a specific domain. Depending on the assessment design, the scores can be on the ordinal, interval, or even ratio scale. Then, depending on the score obtained on the test, a test taker can be classified into the mastery or nonmastery categories (in the case of professional testing) or into basic, proficient, or advanced levels of performance in the case of K–12. 18

When test takers present themselves at the test site for an exam administration, they arrive as members of a single population. The goal of the test designer and test administrator is to separate the test takers into subpopulations according to the intended users' objectives for the scores. Thus, each item on the test is a classification tool that helps make the categorization decision regarding each individual test taker. With each item that is answered correctly, a test taker is more likely to be classified into the higher category, while each incorrect response increases the likelihood of classification into a lower category.

Reliability and Validity

The quality of a measurement instrument is expressed in terms of the reliability and validity of the scores collected by this instrument. Reliability is the consistency with which a measure, scale, or instrument assesses a given construct, while validity refers to the degree of relationship, or the “overlap” between an instrument and the construct it is intended to measure. 13 The traditional meaning of reliability is the degree to which respondents' scores on a given administration of a measure resemble their scores on the same instrument administered later within a reasonable time frame. Kerlinger and Lee 19 suggested 3 approaches to reliability: stability, lack of distortion, and being free of measurement error. The first 2 definitions are addressed in this section; the third definition requires an introduction to classical test theory 20 , 21 and is addressed later.

If a measurement instrument or a comparable form is administered multiple times to the same or a similar group of people, we should expect similar scores. This is called temporal stability —the degree to which data obtained in a given test administration resemble those obtained in following administrations. When an assessment is conducted, a score user expects assurance that scores are replicable if the same individuals are tested repeatedly under the same circumstances. 9 There are 2 techniques to assess temporal stability: the test–retest method and the parallel forms method.

In the test–retest method, a set of items is administered to a group of subjects, then the test is readministered later to the same group. The correlation of the 2 sets of scores is then measured. A higher correlation between the scores indicates higher reliability.

In the parallel forms method, 2 different forms of the same test are constructed, both measuring the same critical trait (knowledge base). Next, both forms are administered to the same group of test takers at the same test session. A higher relationship between the 2 sets of scores indicates higher reliability. However, it is very difficult to correctly construct equivalent test forms, and a weak relationship between the 2 sets of scores may actually reflect a lack of equivalence.

Another component of reliability is a scale's internal consistency . The lack of distortion or internal consistency of an instrument refers to the extent to which the individual components of a test are interrelated and thus produce the same or similar results. Items on the test should “hang together.” One of the earlier techniques to establish the internal consistency of a scale is known as the split-half reliability. 22 The test is randomly split in half, and the 2 sets of test scores are compared to each other. Once again, a closer relationship between the 2 sets of scores indicates a higher test reliability.

Cronbach 6 , 23 developed the coefficient alpha , an alternative to the once common split-half technique, which has become the most universal technique for estimating internal consistency reliability. His coefficient alpha assesses reliability as a ratio of the summed variances of individual items and the total variance for the instrument, subtracted from 1 and adjusted for the number of items in the instrument. Cronbach's alpha coefficient is computed as follows:

Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0 to 1.0 with values closer to 1.0 indicating higher reliability. The internal consistency of a test is considered acceptable if the alpha coefficient is above .70. 24 , 25 An alternative interpretation of Cronbach's alpha is the mean of all interitem correlations. If a correlation coefficient is squared, it becomes a coefficient of determination , which indicates the proportion of variability shared between 2 variables. 19 Thus, when .70 is squared, it becomes .49. This means that at least half of the variability in the responses collected by the instrument is explained by the instrument's internal consistency.

Reliability alone is not sufficient to establish the quality of a test. A good test must also measure what it was designed to measure, which is often referred to as validity . The validity of a scale refers to the extent of correspondence between variations in the scores on the test and the variation among respondents on the underlying construct being tested. 13 The process of validation is closely related to the intended use of the scores. For example, scores collected on a test of general anatomy given in English ideally depict the knowledge of anatomy possessed by a test taker. Yet, if a test is given to a sample of English-language learners, a part of the variability in scores can be explained by English proficiency (or lack thereof). Therefore, the scores collected by the same test in an English-first population of test takers may have higher validity than scores collected from English-language learners.

Importantly, the validity of a test is a matter of degree, not all or none. Further, the existing evidence of validity may be challenged by new findings or by new circumstances. Unavoidably, validity becomes an evolving property, and test validation is a continuous process. 26 This process of validation requires ongoing empirical research efforts outside of those used for reliability. The methods employed for establishing validity of a test include a thorough analysis of the content of the test during the phase of its scale development and quantitative assessment of the relationship between the test scores and the criterion that has been tested. 2 The degree of accuracy with which test scores relate to their intended use may be established by studying the predictive validity.

Test scores with low validity can still be reliable, while reliability is a prerequisite for validity. Establishing reliability is more of a technical matter, whereas validity requires much deeper thinking and consideration; it is much more than a statistical procedure. Continuous vigilant consideration of each item in terms of content representation and its statistical performance as well as the reflection on the populations of test takers are all essential for confirming a test score's validity.

Classical Test Theory

Any measurement is an inference, and any statistical inference is subject to error. All measurements are susceptible to random error and, if repeated, may vary. To comprehend the size and the origin of the error, ideally, the measurement should be repeated several times, as the average of a series of measurements is more precise than any individual measurement by a factor equal to the square root of the number of measurements. 27 Classical test theory (CTT) postulates that any observation is a linear combination of the true score and error. The fundamental equation of CTT states the following:

where O i is the observed score for an examinee i , T i is the true score for that examinee, and E i is the error in the measurement. Thus, every test could be seen as a combination of 2 hypothetical components: the true score (true knowledge of the material tested) and the deviations from the true score due to random or systematic factors. Any systematic errors in measurement become part of an individual's true score and affect the validity since the score is no longer an estimate only of the latent trait but also of the systematic variability. The random errors, on the other hand, affect the reliability of the score and create a distortion in the observed score's precision over repeated administrations of the test.

Test scores can be described as random variables. 9 A random variable X is an outcome of a process that is determined by a probability distribution. The term “expectation” or “expected value,” denoted as E ( X ), is used to signify the mean of the probability distribution. Assuming that all systematic variability in the observed score is accounted for by the true score and the error component consists of only random error, we can specify the distribution of the errors as follows:

which means that if examinee i takes the exam an infinite number of times, by definition of random, the same amount of error will be distributed above and below the true score. Thus, the error will average at 0. The relationship between the observed score and the true score can be clarified by taking the expectation of the observed score:

Meanwhile, if the expectation of error is 0 (see equation 3) and the expected value of the observed score is the true score,

Then it follows from equations 2 and 5 that

There are 3 other fundamental assumptions made by CTT: it is assumed that the correlation between true score and error is 0, that the correlation between error score on test 1 and error score on test 2 is 0, and that the correlation between the true score on test 1 and the error score on test 2 is 0.

The definition of reliability can be formulated in the framework of CTT if the following extension is made to the equation 2:

where Var ( O i ), the observed score variability, is partitioned into the true score variability, Var ( T i ), and the variability of error, Var ( E i ). Reliability is the proportion of the true score variability to the observed score variability or the proportion of the error variability to the observed score variability subtracted from 1.0:

with ρ O 1, O 2 being the reliability coefficient.

The variability of the scores, as viewed by CTT, provides the explanation for score stability. Test takers who are not satisfied with their exam scores may choose to repeat the test. While an examinee repeating a test is interested in the increase of the observed score, psychometricians consider any increase in the true score separately from the increase in the error component. If a test is reliable, it is very hard to increase the true score component when the assessment is repeated over a short period of time. Only long-term learning is associated with an increase in the true score component. 28 , 29 At the same time, the scores for a repeat test taker will vary from 1 administration to another, and, usually, improved performance may be seen on a second measurement occasion, even if different questions are used. 12 This is due to the known phenomenon called the practice effect , 30 which is defined as an increase in an examinee's test score from 1 administration of the same assessment to the next in the absence of learning, coaching, or other factors that are known to increase the score. 31

Other sources of measurement error may include temporary or momentary fatigue, fluctuations of memory or mood, or fortuitous conditions at a particular time that temporarily affect the outcomes measured by the test. 19 Test scores may also be influenced by the content of the material that appeared on the test, guessing, state of alertness, and even scoring errors.

Another likely explanation of the differences in scores from 1 measurement occasion to another is the phenomenon known as regression to the mean . 32 Each form of a test will tend to favor certain students but not others in a nonsystematic way. Students may get a test with items representing the material they are most familiar with or have studied the most. However, students who were favored by 1 form of the test are not likely to be favored by another when they retake the test. Therefore, the scores obtained on the second or third testing occasions will tend to be closer to the mean than the scores obtained on the first testing occasion. 33

Even though it is never possible to measure exactly how much an increase in the observed score is influenced by the error component, CTT allows for estimation of the standard error of measurement (SEM), which is a function of the standard deviation of the set of observed scores and the reliability of the test:

where SD O is the standard deviation of the set of observed scores and ρˆ O 1, O 2 is an estimate of reliability. Estimates of the SEM can be helpful in interpreting increases in individual test scores.

Item Response Theory

Item response theory (IRT) is a collection of statistical and psychometric methods used to model test takers' item responses. 34 The initial development of IRT models took place in the second half of the 20th century. First, Rasch 35 developed a model for analyzing categorical data. Next, Lord and Novick 21 wrote chapters on the theory of latent trait estimation, which gave birth to a new way of data analysis in testing. Prior to the development of IRT, the testing industry relied on CTT methods for modeling test item responses. Since then, IRT has made its way into every aspect of the testing industry. IRT methods are used today in test development, item banking, data analysis, analysis of differential item functioning, adaptive testing, test equating, and test scaling. 36

The early IRT models were first developed for dichotomously scored item responses (eg, 0 = wrong, 1 = right). These models included the 1-parameter logistic model (1PL), the 2-parameter logistic model (2PL), and the 3-parameter logistic model (3PL). Common assumptions for the early IRT models include unidimensionality —only 1 latent trait is necessary to explain the pattern of item-level responses 37 —and local independence —after accounting for the latent trait, there is no dependency among the items. 36 Later, models for polytomous responses were developed: the partial credit model 38 and the generalized partial credit model. 35

In the early 1990s, significant efforts were made to develop multidimensional IRT models 39 , 40 and models that were able to account for item dependency over and above the dependency explained by the common trait. 41 , 42 Due to the introductory nature of this article, I will present the mathematical logic and graphical examples of the 1PL, 2PL, and 3PL models only.

One advantage of IRT over traditional testing theories is that IRT defines a scale for the underlying latent variable that is being measured by the test items. 43 IRT assumes that responses on a unidimensional test are underlined by a single latent trait ( θ ), often called the test taker's “ability.” This latent trait is not able to be observed directly; however, it can be constructed using observed responses to the items on a test. Assuming IRT, the probability of a response to an item on a test is conditional on θ :

The student's ability and the item difficulty are on the same scale; therefore, θ j = β i corresponds to θ – β = 0, meaning that there is an exact match between an examinee's ability and item difficulty; θ j > β i corresponds to θ – β > 0, which means that the item is easy for the examinee's ability level; and θ j < β i means that when θ – β < 0, the item is difficult for the test taker. Thus, the probability of providing a correct response by an examinee j to an item i is a function of the difference between theta and beta; formulaically,

where f is a function that relates the ability and the probability (ICC).

In this model, the probability of the response to an item is a function of the difference between the test taker's ability and the item's difficulty. The following is the equation for 1PL:

where D is a scaling factor, set to D = 1.7, so the values of P ( θ ) for 2-parameter normal ogive and the values for 2PL differ by less than 0.01.

Illustration

The computing language R (an open-source environment for statistical computing and graphics) is often used to fit IRT models to data and estimate item parameters. Presented here is an example by means of the “irtoys” package 44 to fit various IRT models using a set of simulated responses (n = 2000) to a 40-item test. The items were scored dichotomously. Table 1 presents estimates of model parameters and associated standard errors for the 1PL model. The item difficulty is the only parameter that was estimated, while the item discrimination was fixed at 1. Figure 1 a presents the ICC curves for the 40 items. The curves differ by their location in relation to the x-axis, which is a reference scale for the test takers' ability and item difficulty—more difficult items are to the right, while less difficult items are to the left. The 1PL model assumes that all items relate to the latent trait (ability) equally and differ only in the amount of difficulty.

Item-Parameter Estimates, 1-Parameter Logistic Model (N/A = Not Applicable)

a) Item characteristic curves for the 40 items, 1-parameter logistic model. b) Item information functions for the 40 items, 1-parameter logistic model.

Figure 1 b presents the item information functions (IIF) for the 40 items. The IIF shows the point on the ability scale for which the item provides maximum information. Assuming that these curves are Gaussian, the ranges of ability for which an item provides the most information can be estimated using the 3-sigma empirical rule. 45 The IIF depends on the slope of the item response function as well as the conditional variance at each ability level. The greater the slope and the smaller the variance, the greater the information and the smaller the standard error of measurement (SEM). 32 In 1PL, the slopes are held constant; therefore, there is no variability in the height of the curves.

The 2PL model estimates another parameter—the discrimination of an item, seen as the slope of the ICC. The discrimination is between those test takers who know the right answer and the population of test takers who do not demonstrate that knowledge. The items with better discriminating qualities have steeper slopes. The following equation represents the 2PL model:

where a i is the discrimination parameter for item i . Table 2 presents the model parameter estimates and related standard errors for the 2PL model. Figure 2 a presents the ICCs for the same 40 items as Figure 1 a; it is now obvious that some items are better at discriminating between the 2 populations (have steeper slopes) than others.

Item-Parameter Estimates, 2-Parameter Logistic Model (N/A = Not Applicable)

a) Item characteristic curves for the 40 items, 2-parameter logistic model. b) Item information functions for the 40 items, 2-parameter logistic model.

The estimation of the slope relaxes the assumption of an invariant relationship between the items and the latent trait. This relationship can now be estimated, and it is similar to the factor loadings in factor analysis. 46 The items with higher discrimination coefficients are more responsive to small changes in the latent trait, whereas the items with low discrimination coefficients require large changes in the latent trait to reflect a change in the probability. Figure 2 b presents the items' information curves, which now show variability in the amount of information they provide.

The 3PL model is a 2PL model with an additional parameter, γ i , which is the lower asymptote of the ICC and represents the probability of a test taker with a low ability providing a correct answer to an item i . The inclusion of this parameter suggests that test takers who score low on the latent trait may still provide a correct response by chance. This parameter is referred to as “guessing.” The following is the mathematical representation of the 3PL model:

where γ i is the guessing parameter. Referring back to equation 14, if a test taker guessed ( γ i = 1), then the probability of the correct response is entirely explained by guessing (the term after the plus sign disappears). However, if the test taker did not guess ( γ i = 0), the model defaults to the 2PL. Table 3 presents model parameter estimates for the 3PL, while Figure 3 a and b presents ICCs and IIFs, respectively, for the 40 items.

Item-Parameter Estimates, 3-Parameter Logistic Model (N/A = Not Applicable)

a) Item characteristic curves for the 40 items, 3-parameter logistic model. b) Item information functions for the 40 items, 3-parameter logistic model.

Polytomous IRT Models

Various polytomous IRT models have been developed to account for ordered categorical responses. Samejima 47 developed a logistic model for graded responses in which the probability that an examinee j with a particular level of ability will provide a response to an item i of the category k is the difference between the cumulative probability of a response to that category or higher and the cumulative probability of a response to the next highest category or higher. Consider the following:

where b ik is the difficulty parameter for category k i and a i is the discrimination parameter for item j . 47

A different model for ordered categorical response was developed by Masters. 33 In this partial credit model, the probability that an examinee j will provide a response x on item i with M i thresholds is a function of student's ability and the difficulties from the M i thresholds in item i is given by the following:

Samejima's graded response model was fitted to a simulated data set of n = 1500 responses to 10 polytomous items scored using the following categories: 0, 1, 2, and 3. Table 4 presents model-based parameter estimates; Figure 4 a presents ICC curves for items 1–4 of the 10 polytomous items. Figure 4 b and c presents ICC curves for items 5–8 and 9 and 10, respectively.

Item-Parameter Estimates, Graded Response

a) Item characteristic curves for items 1-4, graded response. b) Item characteristic curves for items 5-8, graded response. c) Item characteristic curves for items 9 and 10, graded response.

Measurements of the same construct collected at different times or by different forms must be brought to the same scale to be comparable. In the field of testing, when tests are used to make high-stakes decisions, the scores for examinees who took the test on 1 occasion using 1 test form should be comparable to the scores of examinees who took the test on another occasion using a different test form. Due to the security of test programs, it is common practice to administer different forms of the test on different testing occasions. However, it is hard to construct 2 truly parallel forms, and often these test forms differ in difficulty. Yet it is important to avoid a situation where 1 group of test takers has an unfair advantage because they were administered an easier form of the exam. 48 Therefore, the test scores must be equated to account for the possible differences in difficulty between the test forms or differences in ability between the groups of test takers.

Equating is a statistical process used to adjust scores on test forms so that scores on the forms can be used interchangeably. 36 After equating, alternate forms of the same test yield scaled scores that can be used interchangeably even though they are based on different sets of items. 49 It is important to point out that statistical adjustment is not possible for differences in content. The responsibility for the content equivalence between 2 forms of a test lies entirely on test developers.

For the past 30 years, equating has received much deserved attention and research. Many new equating methods have been proposed and tested in both research and operational testing programs. I will introduce only general principles related to equating here, as my goal is to make the reader aware of the procedure. Those who wish to expand their knowledge of equating should turn to the literature published in the field of educational measurement.

The first step in the process of equating is to decide on an equating design. Test scores can be equated using either the same populations or the same items. Single-group design assumes that 2 test forms can be equated if they are given to the same population of examinees. Since the same examinees take both tests, the difficulty levels are not confounded by the ability of the examinees. 37 Equivalent-group design assumes that 2 test forms are given to similar but not the same populations of examinees. Reasonable group equivalence may be achieved through random assignment. 13

Common-item design requires that both forms of the test contain a set of the same items, usually called “anchor” items; the forms are then administered to different populations of examinees. Subsequently, a function that relates the statistics computed for each anchor set will account for the differences in difficulty. This mathematical function is then used to equate the nonanchor items on both forms. 36 , 37

An appropriate equating methodology must be chosen, depending on which theoretical framework is preferred by the testing program, to obtain the test-taker statistics and the item-level statistics. Equating methods have been developed based on both CTT and IRT. When pairs of statistical values for 2 forms have been obtained, a decision is made regarding the methods to be used to relate these exams. Several methods can be selected from the framework of linear modes for this; they include regression methods, mean and sigma procedures, or characteristic curves methods.

Equating is the strongest form of linking. The tests can be similar or even equivalent in content and different in difficulty, or they can be different in content and also in difficulty. When tests are different in content, the scores obtained on these exams may still need to be put on the same scale. In this case, the statistical process of adjusting the scores for difficulty is called linking. When linking is used for equating, the relationship is invariant across different populations. 36 The term equating is reserved for the situation when scores from 2 tests of the same content are linked. The statistical procedures used in equating may not differ for linking; however, no linking procedures can adjust for differences in content.

This article presents researchers and clinicians in the health sciences with an introduction to educational measurement—the history, theoretical frameworks of the CTT and IRT, and the most common IRT models used in modern testing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is dedicated to Dr Howard B. Lee, a mentor and friend.

FUNDING AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No funding was received for this work, and the author has no conflicts of interest to declare relevant to this work.

Standardized Tests: Purpose Is the Point

A Matter of Timing

The consortia-built tests, publication of the joint standards, how we got here, the three primary purposes of tests, comparisons among test takers, improvement of ongoing instruction and learning, evaluation of instruction, what's at issue.

Premium Resource

Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests. Validity is, therefore, the most fundamental consideration in developing tests and evaluating tests. (p. 11)

• Comparisons among test takers . One primary purpose of educational testing is to compare students' test performances in order to identify score-based differences among individual students or groups of students. The comparisons often lead to the classification of students' scores on a student-by-student or group-by-group basis.
• Improvement of ongoing instruction and learning. A second primary purpose is to elicit evidence regarding students' current levels of learning so educators can make informed decisions regarding changes in their ongoing instruction or in students' current efforts to learn.
• Evaluation of instruction. A third primary purpose is to determine the quality of an already-completed set of instructional activities. This is often referred to as summative evaluation.
• If a school needs to decide which students should be assigned to a special enrichment course in science, then the purpose of a test to help make that decision would be comparative.
• If the decision on the line is how to improve students' mastery of a recently adopted set of curricular aims, then the purpose of a test would be instructional.
• If a district's school board members are trying to determine whether an expensive tutorial program is worth its cost, then those board members could make a better decision by using a test whose primary purpose was evaluative.

.css-191dech{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;} .css-12z0wuy{margin-right:8px;} • .css-16w6vyg{margin:0;font-family:'Poppins',sans-serif;font-weight:400;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.43;font-size:1rem;font-weight:400;line-height:1.625rem;letter-spacing:0.2px;} 1 American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Edu- cation, and Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: Author.

• 2 U.S. Department of Education. (2015, September 25). U.S. Department of Education peer review of state assessment systems: Non-Regulatory guidance for states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

James Popham is Emeritus Professor in the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. At UCLA he won several distinguished teaching awards, and in January 2000, he was recognized by UCLA Today as one of UCLA's top 20 professors of the 20th century.

Popham is a former president of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the founding editor of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , an AERA quarterly journal.

He has spent most of his career as a teacher and is the author of more than 30 books, 200 journal articles, 50 research reports, and nearly 200 papers presented before research societies. His areas of focus include student assessment and educational evaluation. One of his recent books is Assessment Literacy for Educators in a Hurry.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action., from our issue.

To process a transaction with a Purchase Order please send to [email protected]

Created by the Great Schools Partnership , the GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION REFORM is a comprehensive online resource that describes widely used school-improvement terms, concepts, and strategies for journalists, parents, and community members. | Learn more »

Standardized Test

A standardized test is any form of test that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that (2) is scored in a “standard” or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students. While different types of tests and assessments may be “standardized” in this way, the term is primarily associated with large-scale tests administered to large populations of students, such as a multiple-choice test given to all the eighth-grade public-school students in a particular state, for example.

In addition to the familiar multiple-choice format, standardized tests can include true-false questions, short-answer questions, essay questions, or a mix of question types. While standardized tests were traditionally presented on paper and completed using pencils, and many still are, they are increasingly being administered on computers connected to online programs (for a related discussion, see computer-adaptive test ). While standardized tests may come in a variety of forms, multiple-choice and true-false formats are widely used for large-scale testing situations because computers can score them quickly, consistently, and inexpensively. In contrast, open-ended essay questions need to be scored by humans using a common set of guidelines or rubrics to promote consistent evaluations from essay to essay—a less efficient and more time-intensive and costly option that is also considered to be more subjective. (Computerized systems designed to replace human scoring are currently being developed by a variety of companies; while these systems are still in their infancy, they are nevertheless becoming the object of growing national debate.)

While standardized tests are a major source of debate in the United States, many test experts and educators consider them to be a fair and objective method of assessing the academic achievement of students, mainly because the standardized format, coupled with computerized scoring, reduces the potential for favoritism, bias, or subjective evaluations. On the other hand, subjective human judgment enters into the testing process at various stages—e.g., in the selection and presentation of questions, or in the subject matter and phrasing of both questions and answers. Subjectivity also enters into the process when test developers set passing scores—a decision that can affect how many students pass or fail, or how many achieve a level of performance considered to be “ proficient .” For more detailed discussions of these issue, see measurement error , test accommodations ,  test bias and score inflation .

Standardized tests may be used for a wide variety of educational purposes. For example, they may be used to determine a young child’s readiness for kindergarten, identify students who need special-education services or specialized academic support , place students in different academic programs or course levels, or award diplomas and other educational certificates. The following are a few representative examples of the most common forms of standardized test:

• Achievement tests are designed to measure the knowledge and skills students learned in school or to determine the academic progress they have made over a period of time. The tests may also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a schools and teachers, or identify the appropriate academic placement for a student—i.e., what courses or programs may be deemed most suitable, or what forms of academic support they may need. Achievement tests are “backward-looking” in that they measure how well students have learned what they were expected to learn.
• Aptitude tests attempt to predict a student’s ability to succeed in an intellectual or physical endeavor by, for example, evaluating mathematical ability, language proficiency, abstract reasoning, motor coordination, or musical talent. Aptitude tests are “forward-looking” in that they typically attempt to forecast or predict how well students will do in a future educational or career setting. Aptitude tests are often a source of debate, since many question their predictive accuracy and value.
• College-admissions tests are used in the process of deciding which students will be admitted to a collegiate program. While there is a great deal of debate about the accuracy and utility of college-admissions tests, and many institutions of higher education no longer require applicants to take them, the tests are used as indicators of intellectual and academic potential, and some may consider them predictive of how well an applicant will do in postsecondary program.
• International-comparison tests are administered periodically to representative samples of students in a number of countries, including the United States, for the purposes of monitoring achievement trends in individual countries and comparing educational performance across countries. A few widely used examples of international-comparison tests include the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
• Psychological tests , including IQ tests, are used to measure a person’s cognitive abilities and mental, emotional, developmental, and social characteristics. Trained professionals, such as school psychologists, typically administer the tests, which may require students to perform a series of tasks or solve a set of problems. Psychological tests are often used to identify students with learning disabilities or other special needs that would qualify them for specialized services.

Following a wide variety of state and federal laws, policies, and regulations aimed at improving school and teacher performance, standardized achievement tests have become an increasingly prominent part of public schooling in the United States. When focused on reforming schools and improving student achievement, standardized tests are used in a few primary ways:

• To hold schools and educators accountable for educational results and student performance. In this case, test scores are used as a measure of effectiveness, and low scores may trigger a variety of consequences for schools and teachers. For a more detailed discussion see high-stakes test .
• To evaluate whether students have learned what they are expected to learn , such as whether they have met state learning standards . In this case, test scores are seen as a representative indicator of student achievement.
• To identify gaps in student learning and academic progress. In this case, test scores may be used, along with other information about students, to diagnose learning needs so that educators can provide appropriate services, instruction, or academic support .
• To identify achievement gaps among different student groups , including students of color, students who are not proficient in English, students from low-income households, and students with physical or learning disabilities. In this case, exposing and highlighting achievement gaps may be seen as an essential first step in the effort to educate all students well, which can lead to greater public awareness and changes in educational policies and programs.
• To determine whether educational policies are working as intended. In this case, elected officials and education policy makers may rely on standardized-test results to determine whether their laws and policies are working or not, or to compare educational performance from school to school or state to state. They may also use the results to persuade the public and other elected officials that their policies are in the best interest of children and society.

While debates about standardized testing are wide-ranging, nuanced, and sometimes emotionally charged, many debates tend to be focused on the ways in which the tests are used, and whether they present reliable or unreliable evaluations of student learning, rather than on whether standardized testing is inherently good or bad (although there is certainly debate on this topic as well). Most test developers and testing experts, for example, caution against using standardized-test scores as an exclusive measure of educational performance, although many would also contend that test scores can be a valuable indicator of performance if used appropriately and judiciously. Generally speaking, standardized testing is more likely to become an object of debate and controversy when test scores are used to make consequential decisions about educational policies, schools, teachers, and students. The tests are less likely to be contentious when they are used to diagnose learning needs and provide students with better services—although the line separating these two purposes is notoriously fuzzy in practice (thus, the ongoing debates).

While an exhaustive discussion of standardized-testing debates is beyond the scope of this resource, the following questions will illustrate a few of the major issues commonly discussed and debated in the United States:

• Are numerical scores on a standardized test misleading indicators of student learning, since standardized tests can only evaluate a narrow range of achievement using inherently limited methods? Or do the scores provide accurate, objective, and useful evidence of school, teacher, or student performance? (Standardized tests don’t measure everything students are expected to learn in school. A test with 50 multiple-choice questions, for example, can’t possibly measure all the knowledge and skills a student was taught, or is expected to learn, in a particular subject area, which is one reason why some educators and experts caution against using standardized-test scores as the only indicator of educational performance and success.)
• Are standardized tests fair to all students because every student takes the same test and is evaluated in the same way? Do the tests have inherent biases that may disadvantage certain groups, such as students of color, students who are unfamiliar with American cultural conventions, students who are not proficient in English, or students with disabilities that may affect their performance?
• Is the use of standardized tests providing valuable information that educators and school leaders can use to improve instructional quality? Is the pervasive overuse of testing actually taking up valuable instructional time that could be better spent teaching students more content and skills?
• Do the benefits of standardized testing—consistent data on school and student performance that can be used to inform efforts to improve schools and teaching—outweigh the costs—the money spent on developing the tests and analyzing the results, the instructional time teachers spend prepping students, or the time students spend taking the test?
• Do math and reading test scores, for example, provide a full and accurate picture of school, teacher, and student performance? Do standardized tests focus too narrowly on a few academic subjects?
• Does the narrow range of academic content evaluated by standardized tests cause teachers to focus too much on test preparation and a few academic subjects (a practice known as “teaching to the test”) at the expense of other worthwhile educational pursuits, such as art, music, health, physical education, or 21 st century skills , for example?
• Do standardized tests, and the consequences attached to low scores, hold schools, educators, and students to higher standards and improve the quality of public education? Do the tests create conditions that undermine effective education, such as cheating, unhealthy forms of competition, or unjustly negative perceptions of public schooling?
• Should some of the most important decisions in public education—such as whether to reduce or increase school funding or fire teachers and principals—be made entirely or primarily on the basis of test scores? Are standardized-test scores, which could potentially be misleading or inaccurate, too limited a measure to use as a basis for such consequential decisions?

Alphabetical Search

Effects of Standardized Testing on Students & Teachers: Key Benefits & Challenges

The use of standardized testing to measure academic achievement in US schools has fueled debate for nearly two decades. Understanding the effects of standardized testing—its key benefits and challenges—requires a closer examination of what standardized testing is and how it’s used in academic settings.

Developing ways to effectively and fairly measure academic achievement is an ongoing challenge for school administrators. For those inspired to promote greater equity in education, American University’s online Doctor of Education (EdD) in Education Policy and Leadership provides the knowledge and training to address such challenges.

What Are Standardized Tests?

Standardized tests are examinations administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner. They typically rely heavily on question formats, such as multiple choice and true or false, that can be automatically scored. Not limited to academic settings, standardized tests are widely used to measure academic aptitude and achievement.

The ACT and SAT, standardized tests used broadly for college admissions, assess students’ current educational development and their aptitude for completing college-level work. Standardized academic achievement tests are mandatory in primary and secondary schools in the US, where they’re designed and administered at the state or local level and used to assess requirements for federal education funding.

Standardized testing requirements are designed to hold teachers, students, and schools accountable for academic achievement and to incentivize improvement. They provide a benchmark for assessing problems and measuring progress, highlighting areas for improvement.

Despite these key benefits, standardized academic achievement tests in US public schools have been controversial since their inception. Major points of contention have centered on who should design and administer tests (federal, state, or district level), how often they should be given, and whether they place some school districts at an advantage or disadvantage. More critically, parents and educators have questioned whether standardized tests are fair to teachers and students.

Effects of Standardized Testing on Students

Some of the challenging potential effects of standardized testing on students are as follows:

• Standardized test scores are often tied to important outcomes, such as graduation and school funding. Such high-stakes testing can place undue stress on students and affect their performance.
• Standardized tests fail to account for students who learn and demonstrate academic proficiency in different ways. For example, a student who struggles to answer a multiple-choice question about grammar or punctuation may be an excellent writer.
• By placing emphasis on reading, writing, and mathematics, standardized tests have devalued instruction in areas such as the arts, history, and electives.
• Standardized tests are thought to be fair because every student takes the same test and evaluations are largely objective, but a one-size-fits-all approach to testing is arguably biased because it fails to account for variables such as language deficiencies, learning disabilities, difficult home lives, or varying knowledge of US cultural conventions.

Effects of Standardized Testing on Teachers

Teachers as well as students can be challenged by the effects of standardized testing. Common issues include the following:

• The need to meet specific testing standards pressures teachers to “teach to the test” rather than providing a broad curriculum.
• Teachers have expressed frustration about the time it takes to prepare for and administer tests.
• Teachers may feel excessive pressure from their schools and administrators to improve their standardized test scores.
• Standardized tests measure achievement against goals rather than measuring progress.
• Achievement test scores are commonly assumed to have a strong correlation with teaching effectiveness, a tendency that can place unfair blame on good teachers if scores are low and obscure teaching deficiencies if scores are high.

Alternative Achievement Assessments

Critics of standardized testing often point to various forms of performance-based assessments as preferable alternatives. Known by various names (proficiency-based, competency-based), they require students to produce work that demonstrates high-level thinking and real-world applications. Examples include an experiment illustrating understanding of a scientific concept, group work that addresses complex problems and requires discussion and presentation, or essays that include analysis of a topic.

Portfolio-based assessments emphasize the process of learning over letter grades and normative performance. Portfolios can be made up of physical documents or digital collections. They can include written assignments, completed tests, honors and awards, art and graphic work, lab reports, or other documents that demonstrate either progress or achievement. Portfolios can provide students with an opportunity to choose work they wish to reflect on and present.

Performance-based assessments aren’t a practical alternative to standardized tests, but they offer a different way of evaluating knowledge that can provide a more complete picture of student achievement. Determining which systems of evaluation work best in specific circumstances and is an ongoing challenge for education administrators.

Work for Better Student Outcomes with a Doctorate in Education

Addressing the most critical challenges facing educators, including fair and accurate assessment of academic achievement, requires administrators with exceptional leadership and policy expertise. Discover how the online EdD in Education Policy and Leadership at American University prepares educators to create equitable learning environments and effect positive change.

EdD vs. PhD in Education: Requirements, Career Outlook, and Salary

Education Policy Issues in 2020 and Beyond

Path to Becoming a School District Administrator

American University School of Education, Creative Alternatives to Standardized Test Taking

Scholars Strategy Network, How to Improve American Schooling with Less High-Stakes Testing and More Investment in Teacher Development

The Washington Post Magazine , “The Demise of the Great Education Saviors”

U.S. Department of Education, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Request Information

Examining the Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

• An Introduction to Teaching
• Tips & Strategies
• Policies & Discipline
• Community Involvement
• School Administration
• Technology in the Classroom
• Teaching Adult Learners
• Issues In Education
• Teaching Resources
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Special Education
• Homeschooling
• M.Ed., Educational Administration, Northeastern State University
• B.Ed., Elementary Education, Oklahoma State University

Like many issues in public education , standardized testing can be a controversial topic among parents, teachers, and voters. Many people say standardized testing provides an accurate measurement of student performance and teacher effectiveness. Others say such a one-size-fits-all approach to assessing academic achievement can be inflexible or even biased. Regardless of the diversity of opinion, there are some common arguments for and against standardized testing in the classroom .

Standardized Testing Pros

Proponents of standardized testing say that it is the best means of comparing data from a diverse population, allowing educators to digest large amounts of information quickly. They argue that:

It's accountable.  Probably the greatest benefit of standardized testing is that educators and schools are responsible for teaching students what they are required to know for these standardized tests. This is mostly because these scores become public record, and teachers and schools that don’t perform up to par can come under intense examination. This scrutiny can lead to the loss of jobs. In some cases, a school can be closed or taken over by the state.

It's analytical.  Without standardized testing, this comparison would not be possible. Public school students in Texas , for example, are required to take standardized tests, allowing test data from Amarillo to be compared to scores in Dallas. Being able to accurately analyze data is a primary reason that many states have adopted the Common Core state standards .

It's structured.  Standardized testing is accompanied by a set of established standards or an instructional framework to guide classroom learning and test preparation. This incremental approach creates benchmarks to measure student progress over time.

It's objective.  Standardized tests are often scored by computers or by people who do not directly know the student to remove the chance that bias would affect the scoring. Tests are also developed by experts, and each question undergoes an intense process to ensure its validity—that it properly assesses the content—and its reliability, which means that the question tests consistently over time.

It's granular.  The data generated by testing can be organized according to established criteria or factors, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and special needs. This approach provides schools with data to develop targeted programs and services for improving student performance.

Standardized Testing Cons

Opponents of standardized testing say educators have become too fixated on scores and preparing for these exams. Some of the most common arguments against testing are:

It's inflexible.  Some students may excel in the classroom yet not perform well on a standardized test because they're unfamiliar with the format or develop test anxiety. Family strife, mental and physical health issues, and language barriers can all affect a student's test score. But standardized tests don't allow personal factors to be taken into consideration.

It's a waste of time.  Standardized testing causes many teachers to teach to the tests, meaning they only spend instructional time on material that will appear on the test. Opponents say this practice lacks creativity and can hinder a student’s overall learning potential.

It can't measure true progress.  Standardized testing only evaluates one-time performance instead of a student's progress and proficiency over time. Many would argue that teacher and student performance should be evaluated for growth over the course of the year instead of one single test.

It's stressful.  Teachers and students alike feel test stress. For educators, poor student performance may result in a loss of funding and teachers being fired. For students, a bad test score may mean missing out on admission to the college of their choice or even being held back. In Oklahoma, for example, high school students must pass four standardized tests in order to graduate, regardless of their GPA. (The state gives seven standardized end-of-instruction (EOI) exams in Algebra I, Algebra II, English II, English III, Biology I, geometry and U.S. history. Students who fail to pass at least four of these exams can’t get a high school diploma.)

It's political.  With public and charter schools both competing for the same public funds, politicians and educators have come to rely even more on standardized test scores. Some opponents of testing argue that low-performing schools are unfairly targeted by politicians who use academic performance as an excuse to further their own agendas.

• School Testing Assesses Knowledge Gains and Gaps
• What Are Some Pros and Cons of the Common Core State Standards?
• Pros and Cons of Teaching
• The Pros and Cons of a Four-Day School Week
• Performance Based Pay for Teachers
• The Buildup of Standardized Testing Pressure
• Pros and Cons of Using a Traditional Grading Scale
• T.E.S.T. Season for Grades 7-12
• The Pros and Cons of Allowing Cell Phones in School
• Pros and Cons of School Uniforms
• The Pros and Cons of Block Schedules
• 10 Pros and Cons of Being a School Principal
• What are the Pros and Cons of Charter Schools?
• Contrasting Growth and Proficiency Models for Student Achievement
• Pros and Cons of Teacher Tenure
• Pros and Cons of Year-Round School

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Standardized Testing — Standardized Tests in Education: Controversies and Alternatives

Standardized Tests in Education: Controversies and Alternatives

• Categories: Standardized Testing

About this sample

Words: 1654 |

Published: Sep 7, 2023

Words: 1654 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Table of contents

The purpose and function of standardized tests, criticisms and controversies, alternatives and innovations.

• Assessment of Learning: Standardized tests are designed to gauge what students have learned and their level of mastery in specific subjects or skills. They provide a standardized measure of knowledge and competencies.
• Evaluation of Educational Programs: Schools and educational institutions use standardized tests to assess the effectiveness of their curriculum and teaching methods. Results help identify areas in need of improvement.
• Comparison Across Populations: These tests enable comparisons of student performance across different schools, districts, states, and even countries, providing insights into educational disparities.
• College Admissions: Standardized tests like the SAT and ACT are widely used in college admissions processes to assess applicants' readiness for higher education.
• Accountability: Policymakers and educators use standardized tests to hold schools, teachers , and students accountable for their performance, often influencing funding and resource allocation.

Unreliability:

Limiting curriculum:, stress and anxiety:, high stakes:, performance-based assessment:, authentic assessment:, formative assessment:, adaptive testing:, multiple measures:.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2414 words

1 pages / 447 words

1 pages / 525 words

5 pages / 2419 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Standardized Testing

Standardized testing is a form of test that involves all test takers to answer the same question and scores them in a consistent manner wherein it is possible for those who gave the tests to compare and evaluate the performance [...]

Standardized testing has been a cornerstone of the education system for decades, serving as a method to measure student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and school performance. However, in recent years, there has been a [...]

Standardized tests have long been a contentious issue in the realm of college admissions. While some argue in favor of their continued use as an essential tool for evaluating applicants, others contend that they should be [...]

Standardized testing has long been a controversial topic. Proponents argue that it provides an objective measure of academic achievement, while critics point to its limitations and adverse effects on students, teachers, and the [...]

The strange situation was a testing procedure created by Mary Ainsworth et al. in 1978 to measure attachment. The aims of this study were to assess how infants between 9 and 18 months behave under conditions of mild stress in [...]

In recent years, standardized testing has become the basis for learning standards. Lesson plans and school activities tend to be built around what will be on the standardized tests that year, leaving little room for teachers to [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Standardized Tests: The Benefits and Impacts of Implementing Standardized Tests

February 24th, 2022

Share via Twitter

Share via Facebook

Share via LinkedIn

Lisa Tunnell, M.Ed.

Jr. Product Manager

A standardized test is any type of test in which all test takers must address the same questions or subset of questions from a shared pool. Standardized testing creates a baseline for measuring student performance among districts, maintains teacher responsibility, and aids educators while developing their curriculum.

The Need for Standardized Tests

When assessing student comprehension or competency in a particular subject area, a given teacher may use a variety of methods. Given the subjective nature of individual teacher and district assessments, standardized tests allow for less probability of subjective bias when scoring responses. To complete exam questions for these types of tests, the time allotment is the same for each student, and the use of multiple-choice or true-false problems increases the chance of neutral and accurate outcomes.

In the United States, standardized testing begins in elementary (primary) school. For roughly half of the nation, a Kindergarten competency test is mandatory. Students frequently take the ACT or SAT while applying to universities. Individuals take the LSAT when applying to law school and the MCAT if they are applying to medical school.

The following are reasons why standardized tests are prevalent in United States school systems:

Assessing data and performing quantitative analysis of that data are both design goals for standardized assessment exams. This enables schools to benchmark and evaluate their students' performance against the representative sample used in the standardization process using the final published assessments.

A child’s standardized test scores could help teachers decide how to address knowledge gaps in a particular subject.

School administrators can also use test scores to figure out if specific teachers need more training. If some classes are underperforming relative to state standards, more teacher training may need to be completed.

Benefits of Standardized Tests

Since the middle of the nineteenth century, standardized examinations have been used in the United States to measure student achievement.

Standardized testing can: 

1. Establish a universal educational standard.

The objective of standardized is to set a baseline for comparison. Any form of assessment outside of school curricula, which might vary considerably within different education departments, can help a school system compare students from varied backgrounds because all the students took the same test. It becomes easier to evaluate and score individuals when they are measured against a common standard.

2. Demonstrate student progress.

Standardized exams can show student improvement over time by taking the same tests over time. In addition, student test scores can also be easily compared to each other to show changes in progress.

3. Ensure that all educational stakeholders are held accountable.

Ideally, standardized exams assist in defining bigger academic standards for schools across states and the nation. By measuring student achievement, standardized exams can also inform educational policies. School principals and governments are aware that if students in a specific school or district are struggling to achieve at a grade level, the school administration and community stakeholders should intervene and offer help.

Negative Impacts of Standardized Testing

1. Standardized testing can be predictable.

Students who are mindful of patterns can guess answers on a standardized exam based on questions where they definitely know the answers. Thus, high exam results aren't always indicative of student comprehension. According to Brookings , up to 80% of test score gains might have little to do with long-term learning improvements.

2. Standardized testing doesn’t measure intelligence.

While advocates claim that standardized examinations give an objective assessment of student success, the facts are more nuanced. Evidence reveals that socioeconomic class, rather than schooling or grade level, is the biggest predictor of SAT achievement. Opponents of the SAT contend that injustice emerges because wealthier families have the money and effort to invest in test practice tools and services.

3. Standardized testing may have a negative impact on a student's self-esteem.

Another allegation is that standardized testing could make previously successful students doubt themselves and their abilities. Many students suffer from test anxiety, which means they don't perform at their best while taking an exam since the experience of taking a test is so upsetting to them.

4. The curriculum is narrowed through standardized testing.

Between 2001 and 2007 , school systems in the United States cut the average time spent on social studies, creative subjects, and science by more than 40%, according to the Center for Education Policy. Consequently, the average student lost more than 2 hours of teaching time in these disciplines to focus on standardized exam topics like reading and arithmetic.

In Conclusion

Standardized testing has its own set of benefits and drawbacks. Nevertheless, these assessments allow educators to compare student knowledge to identify learning gaps. It is important to note that even if a student has an in-depth understanding of a particular course, not every student may perform well on a test. However, knowing a lot about a subject can help anyone be a more knowledgeable and prepared exam taker.

More Great Content

We know you’ll love

Stay In the Know

Subscribe to our newsletter today!

BBC World Service

Listen live.

The latest news and information from the world's most respected news source. BBC World Service delivers up-to-the-minute news, expert analysis, commentary, features and interviews.

• Higher Education

For and against standardized tests: Two student perspectives

• Samantha McIver and Joshua Palackal

A standardized test. (via Shutterstock)

WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Please give today.

Brought to you by Speak Easy

Thoughtful essays, commentaries, and opinions on current events, ideas, and life in the Philadelphia region.

You may also like

Philadelphia won’t use test scores for admissions to selective schools for 2022-23

The policy grew out of necessity — very few students this spring have taken or will take the state test due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3 years ago

Will this tweak in Pa. law send student test scores soaring?

The standardized tests scores of chronically absent students will no longer count against teachers, schools, and the state.

5 years ago

5 ways the SAT has tried to reinvent itself

The SAT has undergone many, many changes over the years. Here’s a brief look at some of its redesigns.

Want a digest of WHYY’s programs, events & stories? Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Together we can reach 100% of WHYY’s fiscal year goal

• Our Mission

What Does the Research Say About Testing?

There’s too much testing in schools, most teachers agree, but well-designed classroom tests and quizzes can improve student recall and retention.

For many teachers, the image of students sitting in silence filling out bubbles, computing mathematical equations, or writing timed essays causes an intensely negative reaction.

Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 and its 2015 update, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), every third through eighth grader in U.S. public schools now takes tests calibrated to state standards, with the aggregate results made public. In a study of the nation’s largest urban school districts , students took an average of 112 standardized tests between pre-K and grade 12.

This annual testing ritual can take time from genuine learning, say many educators , and puts pressure on the least advantaged districts to focus on test prep—not to mention adding airless, stultifying hours of proctoring to teachers’ lives. “Tests don’t explicitly teach anything. Teachers do,” writes Jose Vilson , a middle school math teacher in New York City. Instead of standardized tests, students “should have tests created by teachers with the goal of learning more about the students’ abilities and interests,” echoes Meena Negandhi, math coordinator at the French American Academy in Jersey City, New Jersey.

The pushback on high-stakes testing has also accelerated a national conversation about how students truly learn and retain information. Over the past decade and a half, educators have been moving away from traditional testing —particularly multiple choice tests—and turning to hands-on projects and competency-based assessments that focus on goals such as critical thinking and mastery rather than rote memorization.

But educators shouldn’t give up on traditional classroom tests so quickly. Research has found that tests can be valuable tools to help students learn , if designed and administered with format, timing, and content in mind—and a clear purpose to improve student learning.

Not All Tests Are Bad

One of the most useful kinds of tests are the least time-consuming: quick, easy practice quizzes on recently taught content. Tests can be especially beneficial if they are given frequently and provide near-immediate feedback to help students improve. This retrieval practice can be as simple as asking students to write down two to four facts from the prior day or giving them a brief quiz on a previous class lesson.

Retrieval practice works because it helps students retain information in a better way than simply studying material, according to research . While reviewing concepts can help students become more familiar with a topic, information is quickly forgotten without more active learning strategies like frequent practice quizzes.

But to reduce anxiety and stereotype threat—the fear of conforming to a negative stereotype about a group that one belongs to—retrieval-type practice tests also need to be low-stakes (with minor to no grades) and administered up to three times before a final summative effort to be most effective.

Timing also matters. Students are able to do fine on high-stakes assessment tests if they take them shortly after they study. But a week or more after studying, students retain much less information and will do much worse on major assessments—especially if they’ve had no practice tests in between.

A 2006 study found that students who had brief retrieval tests before a high-stakes test remembered 60 percent of material, while those who only studied remembered 40 percent. Additionally, in a 2009 study , eighth graders who took a practice test halfway through the year remembered 10 percent more facts on a U.S. history final at the end of the year than peers who studied but took no practice test.

Short, low-stakes tests also help teachers gauge how well students understand the material and what they need to reteach. This is effective when tests are formative —that is, designed for immediate feedback so that students and teachers can see students’ areas of strength and weakness and address areas for growth. Summative tests, such as a final exam that measures how much was learned but offers no opportunities for a student to improve, have been found to be less effective.

Testing Format Matters

Teachers should tread carefully with test design, however, as not all tests help students retain information. Though multiple choice tests are relatively easy to create, they can contain misleading answer choices—that are either ambiguous or vague—or offer the infamous all-, some-, or none-of-the-above choices, which tend to encourage guessing.

While educators often rely on open-ended questions, such short-answer questions, because they seem to offer a genuine window into student thinking, research shows that there is no difference between multiple choice and constructed response questions in terms of demonstrating what students have learned.

In the end, well-constructed multiple choice tests , with clear questions and plausible answers (and no all- or none-of-the-above choices), can be a useful way to assess students’ understanding of material, particularly if the answers are quickly reviewed by the teacher.

All students do not do equally well on multiple choice tests, however. Girls tend to do less well than boys and perform better on questions with open-ended answers , according to a 2018 study by Stanford University’s Sean Reardon, which found that test format alone accounts for 25 percent of the gender difference in performance in both reading and math. Researchers hypothesize that one explanation for the gender difference on high-stakes tests is risk aversion, meaning girls tend to guess less .

Giving more time for fewer, more complex or richer testing questions can also increase performance, in part because it reduces anxiety. Research shows that simply introducing a time limit on a test can cause students to experience stress, so instead of emphasizing speed, teachers should encourage students to think deeply about the problems they’re solving.

Setting the Right Testing Conditions

Test achievement often reflects outside conditions, and how students do on tests can be shifted substantially by comments they hear and what they receive as feedback from teachers.

When teachers tell disadvantaged high school students that an upcoming assessment may be a challenge and that challenge helps the brain grow, students persist more, leading to higher grades, according to 2015 research from Stanford professor David Paunesku. Conversely, simply saying that some students are good at a task without including a growth-mindset message or the explanation that it’s because they are smart harms children’s performance —even when the task is as simple as drawing shapes.

Also harmful to student motivation are data walls displaying student scores or assessments. While data walls might be useful for educators, a 2014 study found that displaying them in classrooms led students to compare status rather than improve work.

The most positive impact on testing comes from peer or instructor comments that give the student the ability to revise or correct. For example, questions like , “Can you tell me more about what you mean?” or “Can you find evidence for that?” can encourage students to improve  engagement with their work. Perhaps not surprisingly, students do well when given multiple chances to learn and improve—and when they’re encouraged to believe that they can.