Out-of-level testing is an underused strategy for addressing the needs of students who score in the extremes, and when used wisely, it could provide educators with a much more accurate picture of what students know. Out-of-level testing has been shown to be an effective assessment strategy with high-achieving students; however, out-of-level testing has not been shown to work well with low-achieving students. This article provides a brief history of out-of-level testing, along with guidelines for using it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchterJ. A.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (1996). Multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted: “It was never there and already it’s vanishing.”Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 65–76. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.65
2.
AlexanderC. R. (1983). A case study: Testing in the Dallas Independent School District. New Directions for Testing and Measurement, 19, 91–96.
3.
AllenM. J.YenW. M. (2001). Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
4.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards of educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
AssoulineS. G.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2012). The Talent Search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 45–59. doi:10.1177/0734282911433946
7.
AyrerJ. E.McNamaraT. C. (1973). Survey testing on an out-of-level basis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 79–84. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1973.tb00785.x
8.
ClearyT. A.HumphreysL. G.KendrickS. A.WesmanA. (1975). Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students. American Psychologist, 30, 15–41. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.30.1.15
9.
FisherJ. A. (1961). The use of out-of-grade tests with retarded and accelerated readers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City.
10.
ForsythR. A.AnsleyT. N.FeldtL. S.AlnotS. D. (2003). Iowa Tests of Educational Development guide to research and development. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
11.
FrisbieD. A. (1988). Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7(1), 25–35. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.tb00422.x
12.
GoldsteinD.StockingV. B.GodfreyJ. J. (1999). What we’ve learned from talent search research. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G. (Eds.), Talent Development III: Proceedings from the 1995 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 143–152). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.
13.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A.OberleyK. R.OrdmanV. L.NaylorR. J.. . . ShannonG. P. (2003). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills guide to research and development. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
14.
ITED: ForsythR. A.AnsleyT. N.FeldtL. S.AlnotS. D. (2001). Iowa Tests of Educational Development. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
15.
KaplanR. M.SaccuzzoD. P. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
16.
LohmanD. F.KorbK. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451–484. doi:10.4219/jeg-2006-245
17.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
18.
LubinskiD.WebbR. M.MorelockM. J.BenbowC. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718–729. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718
19.
McCoachD.RamboK. E.WelshM. (2013). Assessing the growth of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 56–67. doi:10.1177/0016986212463873
20.
MinnemaJ.ThurlowM.BielinskiJ.ScottJ. (2000). Past and present understandings of out-of-level testing: A research synthesis. Out-of-level testing report 1. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED446409)
21.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2009). Talent search programs for gifted adolescents. In DixonF. A. (Ed.), Programs and services for gifted secondary students: A guide to recommended practices (pp. 149–156). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
22.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS.-Y. (2011). Gender and other group differences in performance on off-level tests: Changes in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 54–73. doi:10.1177/0016986210382574
23.
PlakeB. S. (1979). The interpretation of norm-based scores from individualized testing using the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 8–13. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(197901)16:1<8::AID-PITS2310160103>3.0.CO;2-6
RobertsonS. G.PfeifferS. I.TaylorN. (2011). Serving the gifted: A national survey of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 786-799. doi:10.1002/pits.20590
26.
RogersK. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: How parents and teachers can match the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
27.
RudnerL. M.EchternachtG. (1992). Reply to David Frisbie’s review ofUnderstanding Achievement Tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 279–283.
28.
RufD. L. (2005). Losing our minds: Gifted children left behind. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
SlindeJ. A.LinnR. L. (1977). Vertically equated tests: Fact or phantom?Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 23–32. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1977.tb00025.x
31.
SpellingsM. (2007). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED495309)
32.
StanleyJ. C. (1990). Leta Hollingworth’s contributions to above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12, 166–171. doi:10.1080/02783199009553264
33.
StanleyJ. C. (2005). A quiet revolution: Finding boys and girls who reason exceptionally well and/or verbally and helping them get the supplemental educational opportunities they need. High Ability Studies, 16, 5–14. doi:10.1080/13598130500115114
34.
SwiatekM. A.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2005). An evaluation of the elementary student Talent Search by families and schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 247–259. doi:10.1177/001698620504900306
35.
TermanL. M.FentonJ. C. (1921). Preliminary report on a gifted juvenile author. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 163–178. doi:10.1037/h0074962
36.
ThomsonD.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2014). The increasingly important role of off-level testing in the context of the talent development perspective. Gifted Child Today, 37, 33-40. doi: 10.1177/1076217513509619
37.
ThompsonS. J.QuenemoenR. F.ThurlowM. L.YsseldykeJ. E. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
38.
TraubR. E.RowleyG. L. (1991). Understanding reliability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 37–45. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1991.tb00183.x
39.
WarneR. T. (2009). Comparing tests used to identify ethnically diverse gifted children: A critical response to Lewis, DeCamp-Fritson, Ramage, McFarland, & Archwamety. Multicultural Education, 17(1), 48-53.
40.
WarneR. T. (2011). Psychometric impacts of above-level testing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station.
41.
WarneR. T. (2012). History and development of above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 34, 183–193. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.686425
42.
WarneR. T. (2014). Using above-level testing to track growth in academic achievement in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 3–23. doi:10.1177/0016986213513793
43.
XiangY.DahlinM.CroninJ.TheakerR.DurantS. (2011). Do high flyers maintain their altitude?Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
44.
ZieglerA.ZieglerA. (2009). The paradoxical attenuation effect in tests based on classical test theory: Mathematical background and practical implications for the measurement of high abilities. High Ability Studies, 20, 5–14. doi:10.1080/13598130902860473
45.
ZwickR. (2006). Higher education admissions testing. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 647–679). Westport, CT: Praeger.
