Making Classroom Assessments Reliable and Valid. Robert J. Marzano

validity is relatively new. Although it can be traced back to work in the 1970s and 1980s around the importance of test interpretation articulated by Messick (1975, 1993), the argument-based approach became popular because of a series of works by Michael T. Kane (1992, 2001, 2009). At its core, argument-based validity involves an interpretive argument that “lays out the network of inferences leading from the test scores to the conclusions to be drawn and any decisions to be based on these conclusions” (Kane, 2001, p. 329).

      From the instrumental perspective, it is the assessment itself that possesses a specific type of validity (criterion, construct, or content). In contrast, from the argument-based perspective, validity is a function of how the data generated from the assessment are used to craft an argument regarding a particular student’s knowledge or skill. This type of validity applies nicely to the classroom teacher.

      From the argument-based perspective, then, criterion-related validity for a CA is determined by a teacher’s ability to use data from the assessment to predict students’ performance on interim assessments and end-of-course assessments. If students do well on the CAs for a particular topic, they should also do well on the more formal assessments on that topic designed outside of the classroom.

      Construct validity for CAs is determined by the extent to which a teacher can use data from these assessments to identify specific knowledge and skills that should be directly taught. If a teacher can translate scores on the CAs into specific types of instruction for specific students on specific content, then the information generated from the CAs is judged to have construct validity.

      From the argument-based perspective, content validity for CAs is determined by a teacher’s ability to use the information generated from CAs as evidence regarding students’ current knowledge and skill on a specific topic. If the teacher can use the scores on the CAs to determine what content students know and what content they don’t know on a specific progression of knowledge, then the information generated from the CAs is judged to have content validity.

      The distinction between the instrumental and argument-based perspectives is critical to establishing the validity of CAs. Table 1.1 summarizes these differences.

Table 1.1: CA Validity From the Instrumental and Argument-Based Perspectives

Validity Type	Instrumental Perspective	Argument-Based Perspective
Criterion-Related Validity	Scores on a specific CA are correlated highly with scores on some external assessment of the content already established as valid.	The information provided by a set of CAs can be interpretable in terms of how well students might perform on interim and end-of-year assessments.
Construct Validity	Based on statistical analysis, the items on a particular CA are highly correlated for a particular topic.	The information provided by a set of CAs can be interpretable in terms of specific knowledge or skill that can be directly taught.
Content Validity	The scores on a specific CA clearly measure specific content.	The information provided by a set of CAs can be interpreted in terms of students’ status on an explicit progression of knowledge.

      The argument-based perspective is perfectly suited for classroom teachers, and classroom teachers are the perfect individuals to generate Kane’s (1992, 2001, 2009) network of inferences leading to conclusions and decisions from the scores generated from CAs. To do this effectively, though, teachers must utilize standards as the basis for designing tests.

Standards as the Basis of CA Validity

      As the discussion in the introduction illustrates, CAs have an advantage over traditional assessments in that they typically have a narrow focus. Also, within K–12 education, the topics on which CAs should focus have been articulated in content standards. This would seem to make the various types of validity relatively easy for classroom teachers, and it does so if standards are used wisely. Unfortunately, state standards usually require a great deal of interpretation and adaptation to be used effectively in guiding the development of CAs. Their interpretations make all the difference in the world in terms of the utility of standards. As Schneider et al. (2013) note, the way educators interpret state standards plays a major role in assessment development.

      Now we consider the standards movement, as well as the problem with standards.

The Standards Movement

      The K–12 standards movement in the United States has a long, intriguing history. (For a detailed discussion, see Marzano & Haystead, 2008; Marzano et al., 2013). Arguably, the standards movement started in 1989 at the first education summit when the National Education Goals Panel (1991, 1993) set national goals for the year 2000. Millions of dollars were made available to develop sample national standards in all the major subject areas. States took these national-level documents and created state-level versions. Probably the most famous attempts to influence state standards at the national level came in the form of the CCSS and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). States have continued to adapt national-level documents such as these to meet the needs and values of their constituents.

The Problem With Standards

      While it might appear that standards help teachers design valid CAs (at least in terms of content validity), this is not necessarily the case. In fact, in many situations, state standards make validity of all types problematic to achieve. To illustrate, consider the following Common Core State Standard for eighth-grade reading: “Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative, connotative, and technical meanings; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including analogies or allusions to other texts” (RI.8.4; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 39).

      While this standard provides some direction for assessment development, it contains a great deal of content. Specifically, this standard includes the following information and skills.

      ■ Students will understand what figurative, connotative, and technical meanings are.

      ■ Students will be able to identify specific word choices an author made.

      ■ Students will be able to analyze the impact of specific word choices.

      ■ Students will understand what tone is.

      ■ Students will understand what an analogy is.

      ■ Students will understand what an allusion is.

      ■ Students will be able to analyze analogies and allusions.

      The volume of discrete pieces of content in this one standard creates an obvious problem of too much content. As mentioned previously, in their analysis of the CCSS, Marzano et al. (2013) identify seventy-three standard statements for eighth-grade English language arts, as articulated in the CCSS. If one makes a conservative assumption that each of those statements contains about seven component skills like those listed previously, this would mean that an eighth-grade teacher is expected to assess 365 specific pieces of content for ELA alone in a 180-day school year. According to Marzano and colleagues (2013), the same pattern can be observed in many state standards documents.

      Given the fact that it is virtually impossible to teach all the content embedded in national or state standards for a given subject area, a teacher must unpack standards to identify what will be assessed within a system of CAs. Ideally, the district or school does this unpacking. Tammy Heflebower, Jan K. Hoegh, and Phil Warrick (2014) explain how a school or district can lead a systematic effort to identify between fifteen and twenty-five essential topics that should be the focus of CAs. Briefly, the process involves prioritizing standards and the elements within those standards that are absolutely essential to assess. When