Address: Building Maps
Home Assessment
Criteria for Review of Items
Criteria for Review of Items
GENERAL GUIDELINES
Items clearly written and focused
Question posed
Lowest possible reading level used
Irrelevant clues eliminated
Scoring key double-checked
Avoid providing clues via grammar, length, or answers from previous questions
Correct answer should not be obvious to those who have not mastered the materials tested
Purpose, audience, achievement target, resources, and feasibility considered
Best assessment method matched with purpose and achievement target
Time for assessment is considered
Each item addresses a single piece of content
Repetition eliminated from response options
One best or correct answer provided
Response options are brief and parallel in length, use of determiners such as "always", grammatical construction and generality
Number of response options offered fits item context
Use reasonable incorrect choices (avoid ridiculous choices)
Include only one correct or best answer
Avoid complex multiple choice formats
Statement is entirely true or false as presented
Avoid absolute words like "all", "never", and "always"
Consider asking students to make false questions true to encourage higher-order thinking
Clear directions given
List of items to be matched is brief (5 to 15)
List consists of homogeneous entries (e.g. don't mix names with dates)
Response options are brief and parallel
Extra response options offered
One blank is needed to respond
Length of blank is not a clue
Avoid passages lifted directly from text (encourages memorization)
Put blank toward end
The items to be labeled are clearly identified
Avoid long questions or scenarios
Ask questions that require critical thinking and problem-solving
Ask students for evidence and justification
Avoid all encompassing questions (e.g. "discuss")
Define criteria for evaluation
Define point value(s)
Ask questions that require critical thinking and problem solving
Require text references or other data to support their response
Point direction to appropriate response by scaffolding the questions
Provide time for extended responses using the writing process
Assess student performance on content standards, outcomes and indicators
A meaningful context is used based on issues/problems, themes, or student interests
Require application of thinking skills/processes
Interrelate its activities to achieve the purpose of the task
Contain activities appropriate for age(s)/grade(s)
Contain accurate and credible information
Elicit responses which reveal levels of performance
Call for products/performances which address a clear purpose and audience
Establish clear criteria related to standards for evaluating student products and performances
Provide opportunities for students to reflect on/self-evaluate their performance
Allow for ease of implementation in the classroom
Provide teachers with useful information for adjusting instruction
Allow for student revision based on feedback (optional)
Provide for the purposeful integration of subject areas (optional)
Allow for a variety of products/performances (optional)
Make sure there is a common language between assessor and student
Make sure that a sufficient level of verbal fluency exists
Establish rapport and recognize the reluctance for students to reveal themselves
Allow sufficient time
Keep accurate records by using consistent checklists, questions, prompts, etc.
Questions and items on checklists must be clearly aligned with objectives and outcomes
Limit the number of items on checklists so that the most important outcomes and indicators are assessed
Use binary checklists where appropriate to increase efficiency of use
NOTE: Items are compiled from Student -Centered Classroom Assessment, Richard Stiggins, 1997; A Toolkit for Professional Developers: Alternative Assessment, Regional Educational Laboratory Network Program on Science and Mathematics Alternative Assessment, 1995, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory; How To Assess Authentic Learning, Kay Burke, 1994, IRI/Skylight Publishing; and the Maryland Assessment Consortium training materials, Jay McTighe, 1998.
Back to top