Construct Maps in Standard Setting: A Response and Some Additional Thoughts

摘要

I want to take a moment to thank Bunch (2013), Davis-Becker (2013), Kane and Tannenbaum (2013), Kingston, Tiemann, and Loughran (2013), McClarty (2013), Popham (2013), Schulz (2013), and Skaggs (2013), who wrote reflections on my article (Wyse, 2013) that appeared in a recent issue of Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. The purpose of this article is to provide a response to some of the comments of those authors and to provide some additional thoughts on the use of construct maps in standard setting. Given that this response is necessarily short, I focus my comments around a few distinct areas that were consistent themes in the reflections. These include the quality and types of data that are needed to apply construct maps, multidimensionality, the link between a construct map and performance-level descriptors, and the uses of construct maps to display and review standard-setting results.