1) The document summarizes a 12-year meta-analysis of nearly 700 studies and over 1,600 effects analyzing the impact of testing on student achievement from 1910-2010. 2) The meta-analysis found a medium effect of testing on student achievement (d=0.55) that increased to a strong effect when adjusted for measurement error (d=0.71 to 0.88). Higher stakes testing, more frequent testing, and targeted instruction had larger positive effects. 3) Surveys of over 700,000 respondents and qualitative studies also generally found testing improved student achievement and teacher instruction, though results varied by test stakes and rigor.

1. The effect of testing on student achievement:
1910-2010
Richard P. PHELPS
© 2012, Richard P 1
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

2. Meta-analysis
• A method for
summarizing a large
research literature,
with a single,
comparable measure.
© 2012, Richard P 2
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

3. The effect of testing on student
achievement
• 12-year long study
• analyzed close to 700 separate studies,
and more than 1,600 separate effects
• 2,000 other studies were reviewed and
found incomplete or inappropriate
• lacking sufficient time and money,
hundreds of other studies will not be
reviewed
© 2012, Richard P 3
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

4. Looking for studies to include in the
meta-analyses
1. Included only those studies that found an effect from
testing on student achievement or on teacher
instruction…
© 2012, Richard P 4
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

5. Studies included in the meta-analyses
2. …when:
• a test is newly introduced, or newly removed
• quantity of testing is increased or reduced
• test stakes are introduced or increased, or removed or
reduced
© 2012, Richard P 5
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

6. Studies included in the meta-analyses
3. …plus previous research summaries (e.g.)
• Kulik, Kulik, Bangert-Drowns, &
Schwalb (1983-1991) on:
– mastery testing,
– frequency of testing, and
– programs for high-risk university
students
• Basol & Johanson (2009) on testing
frequency
• Jaekyung Lee (2007) on cross-state
studies
• W.J. Haynie (2007) in career-tech ed
© 2012, Richard P 6
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

7. Number of studies of effects,
by methodology type
Number of Number of
Methodology type studies effects
Quantitative 177 640
Surveys and public
247 813
opinion polls (US & Canada)
Qualitative 245 245
TOTAL 669 1698
© 2012, Richard P 7
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

8. Effect size: Cohen’s d
d = (YE - YC) / Spool
YE = mean, experimental group
YC = mean, control group
Spooled = standard deviation
© 2012, Richard P 8
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

9. Effect size: Other formulae
d = t*((n1+n2/n1*n2)^0.5
d = 2r/(1-r²)^0.5
d = (YE pre-YE post-YC pre+
YC post)/Spooled post
© 2012, Richard P 9
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

10. Effect size: Interpretation
• d between 0.25 & 0.50  weak effect
• d between 0.50 et 0.75  medium effect
• d more than 0.75  strong effect
© 2012, Richard P 10
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

11. Quantitative studies
(population coverage ≈ 7 million persons)
© 2012, Richard P 11
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

12. Quantitative studies: Effect size
• “Bare bones” calculation:
d ≈ +0.55 …a medium effect
• Bare bones effect size adjusted for measurement error
d ≈ +0.71 …a stronger effect
• Using same-study-author aggregation
d ≈ +0.88 …a strong effect
© 2012, Richard P 12
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

13. Which predictors matter?
Mean Effect
Treatment Group… Size
…is made aware of performance, and control group is not +0.98
…receives targeted instruction (e.g., remediation) +0.96
…is tested with higher stakes than control group +0.87
…is tested more frequently than control group +0.85
© 2012, Richard P 13
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

14. More Moderators – Source of Test
Number of Mean
Studies Effect Size
Researcher or Teacher 87 0.93
National 24 0.87
Commercial 38 0.82
State or District 11 0.72
Total 160
© 2012, Richard P 14
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

15. More Moderators – Sponsor of Test
Number of Mean
Studies Effect Size
International 5 1.02
Local 99 0.93
National 45 0.81
State 11 0.64
Total 160
© 2012, Richard P 15
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

16. More Moderators - Study Design
Number of Mean
Studies Effect Size
Pre-post 12 0.97
Experiment, Quasi-experiment 107 0.94
Multivariate 26 0.80
Experiment, posttest only 7 0.60
Pre-post (with shadow test) 8 0.58
Total 160
© 2012, Richard P 16
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

17. More Moderators – Scale of Analysis
Number of Mean
Studies Effect Size
Aggregated 9 1.60
Small-scale 118 0.91
Large-scale 33 0.57
Total 160
© 2012, Richard P 17
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

18. More Moderators – Scale of Administration
Number Mean
of Studies Effect Size
Classroom 115 0.95
Mid-scale 6 0.72
Large-scale 39 0.71
Total 160
© 2012, Richard P 18
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

19. Surveys and opinion polls
© 2012, Richard P 19
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

20. Percentage of survey items,
by respondent group and type of survey
50
45
40
35
30 Education
Percent
25 Providers
20
15 Education
10 Consumers
5
0
Public opinion polls Program evaluation
surveys*
© 2012, Richard P 20
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

21. Number and percent of survey items,
by test stakes and target group
Test stakes Number % Target group Number %
High 507 62 Students 393 46
Medium 184 23 Schools 281 33
Low 33 4 Teachers 116 14
Unknown 89 11 No stakes 64 7
TOTAL 813 TOTAL 854
© 2012, Richard P 21
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

22. Opinion polls, by year
• 244 between 1958--2008, in the U.S. & Canada
• 813 unique question-response combinations
• close to 700,000 individual respondents
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
© 2012, Richard P 22
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

23. Surveys and opinion polls:
Regular standardized tests, performance tests
Regular tests Performance tests
(N ≈125) (N ≈ 50)
Respondent opinion d d
Achievement is increased 1.2 1.0
…weighted by size of study population 1.9 0.5
Instruction is improved 1.0 1.4
…weighted by size of study population 0.9 0.9
Tests help align instruction 1.0 1.0
…weighted by size of study population 0.5 0.9
© 2012, Richard P 23
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

24. Qualitative studies: Summary
(One cannot calculate an effect size.)
© 2012, Richard P 24
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

25. Qualitative studies, by methodology type
Number of
Methodology studies %
Case study 120 43
Experiment or pre-post study 21 7
Interviews (individual or group) 75 27
Journal 2 1
Review of official records, documents, reports 33 12
Research review 8 3
Survey 22 8
TOTAL 281 100
© 2012, Richard P 25
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

26. Qualitative studies:
Effect on student achievement
244 studies conducted in the past century in over 30 countries
Number of Percent without
Direction of effect studies Percent of studies the inferred
Positive 204 84 93
Positive inferred 24 10
Mixed 5 2 2
No change 8 3 4
Negative 3 1 1
TOTAL 244 100 100
© 2012, Richard P 26
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

27. Qualitative studies: Testing improves student achievement
and teacher instruction
Number of
Achievement is improved studies %
Yes 200 95
Mixed results 1 <1
No 10 5
TOTAL 211 100
Number of
Instruction is improved studies %
Yes 158 96
No 7 4
TOTAL 165 100
© 2012, Richard P 27
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

28. Qualitative studies:
Variation by rigor and test stakes
Level of rigor
Direction of effect high medium low Total
Positive 95 67 42 204
Positive inferred 10 8 6 24
Mixed 3 1 1 5
No change 4 3 1 8
Negative 1 1 1 3
TOTAL 113 80 51 244
Stakes
Direction of effect high medium low unknown Total
Positive 133 27 38 6 204
Positive inferred 12 5 7 24
Mixed 4 1 5
No change 2 1 5 8
Negative 3 3
TOTAL 154 33 51 6 244
© 2012, Richard P 28
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

29. Qualitative studies:
Regular standardized tests and performance tests
Regular tests Performance tests
(N =176) (N = 69)
Study results % %
Generally positive 93 95
High-stakes tests 71 42
High level of study rigor 46 48
Student attitudes toward test positive 60 71
Teacher attitudes toward test positive 55 80
Student achievement improved 95 95
Instruction improved 92 100
Large-scale testing 86 68
© 2012, Richard P 29
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

30. An enormous research literature
• But, assertions that it does not
exist at all are common
– Some claims are made by
those who oppose standardized
testing, and may be wishful
thinking
– Others are “firstness” claims
© 2012, Richard P 30
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

31. Dismissive research reviews
• With a dismissive research
literature review, a
researcher assures all that
no other researcher has
studied the same topic
© 2012, Richard P 31
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

32. Firstness claims
• With a firstness
claim, a researcher
insists that he or
she is the first to
ever study a topic
© 2012, Richard P 32
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

33. Social costs are
enormous
• Research conducted by those
without power or celebrity is
dismissed -- ignored and lost
• Public policies are skewed, based
exclusively on the research results of
those with power or celebrity
• Society pays again and again for
research that has already been done
© 2012, Richard P 33
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS

34. The effect of testing on student
achievement:
1910-2010
Richard P. PHELPS
© 2012, Richard P 34
International Test Commission, 8th Conference, Amsterdam,
PHELPS