This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Gross, L. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Gross, L. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An Alternative to Mandatory Test Disclosure

Candidate Test Critiques

National Board of Examiners in Optometry

Challenges to tests and test items have led to demands and legislation for mandatory disclosure. Disclosure is tantamount to a loss of item security, a consequence that hampers subsequent test development and equating efforts. Examining boards therefore oppose disclosure. This article describes a new test critique procedure developed by the National Board of Examiners in Optometry that may be used by other credentialing boards. This procedure encourages candidates to identify potentially flawed items during rather than after the test. Candidates therefore retain the opportunity to challenge the test, while a board is able to retain item security. Other benefits of this procedure are discussed.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 11, No. 3, 379-387 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/016327878801100306


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?