<p></p><p>Folks,</p><p></p><p>I hope that this is not a duplicative posting, but one implicit assumption being made here is that NRS is itself valid.  Many of the postings assume that it is, and work from there to elaborate usage for various accountability and program improvement purposes.<br /> </p><p>I work in Ohio and have noted the requirements promulgated by DAEL that other systems must align to NRS (most recently last fall with the Federal register outline of the periodic review process) and in various letters from the AIR psychometrician to states or vendors.  </p><p>When a national system is above all of the state systems, I would think that we should strive to keep it on the quality control line as well as all of the underlings. <br /> </p><p>In my reading of the history of NRS, I have not seen the sorts of construct validity studies that seem to be requested / required for state tests and vendor tests.  Consider the width of the levels and the statements that comprise them.  </p><p>There was a thread of work coming out of the CRESST organization a few years ago (Eva Baker's name comes to mind) called Standards for Educational Accountability (SEA) which might be useful if folks wanted to think about validation of  NRS.</p><p>Another useful framework is the Data Quality Campaign (DQC) that Achieve, Inc. and other organizations are using to improve the seamlessness of transitions in P-16 systems.  In Ohio, for example, we have ABLELink for adult basic education, EMIS for K-12, and other systems for One-Stops and post-secondary.  Many of these systems end up in front of the &quot;tower of babel&quot; when they try to communicate, as noted in some of our &quot;Data Match&quot; to unemployment wage records.</p><p></p>
JTA 
CoreComm Webmail. 
http://home.core.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20070418/b1a36d8d/attachment.html