a0005
Achievement Tests
Gregory J. Cizek
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
1. Introduction
2. Definitions and Examples
3. Types of Achievement Tests
4. Achievement Test Construction
5. Evaluating Achievement Tests
Further Reading
GLOSSARY
ability test A procedure designed to measure an examinee’s
potential for achievement, sometimes also referred to as an
aptitude test.
achievement test A procedure designed to measure an exam-
inee’s attainment of knowledge or skills.
battery A collection of related subtests, the performance on
which can be aggregated to form a composite or ‘‘total
battery’’ score on the entire test.
classroom assessments Achievement tests that are developed,
administered, and scored for classroom use.
content standards Statements that describe specific knowl-
edge or skills over which examinees are expected to have
mastery for a given age/grade and subject area.
criterion-referenced test (CRT) An instrument whose pri-
mary purpose is to gauge whether an examinee knows or
can do specific things.
high-stakes/low-stakes Terms referring to the severity of the
consequences associated with test performance.
inference A reasoned leap, supported by evidence, made
whenever observed test scores are interpreted in terms of
examinees’ underlying standing on a construct or actual
level of knowledge or skill.
Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology,
VOLUME 1
norm-referenced test (NRT) An instrument whose primary
purpose is to describe the relative standing of examinees
at a particular age or grade level.
performance standards Prescribed levels of performance
representing differential degrees of knowledge or skill with
respect to a set of content standards.
reliability The dependability of test scores; because an
assignment or test consists only of a sample of questions
or tasks, and because both the students who respond and
those who score the responses are susceptible to various
unpredictabilities in their performance (called random
errors), no score can considered to be a perfectly depend-
able representation of a student’s performance.
standardized A term used to describe any instrument that is
developed, administered, and scored under controlled
conditions.
standards-referenced test (SRT) An instrument whose pri-
mary purpose is to describe examinees’ performance with
respect to a set of content standards.
validity The degree to which the conclusions yielded by any
sample of behavior (e.g., test, quiz, interview) are mean-
ingful, accurate, and useful; in the context of achievement
testing, validity is the degree to which students’ test scores
yield inferences about the students’ level of knowledge,
skill, or ability that are ‘‘correct’’ or ‘‘on target.’’
Achievement tests are used in diverse contexts to
measure the degree to which examinees can
demonstrate acquisition of knowledge or skills deemed
to be important. The contexts range from teacher-made
testing in elementary and secondary school settings to
41 #2004 Elsevier Inc.
All rights reserved.
 42 Achievement Tests
high-stakes testing for college admission, licensure to
practice a profession, or certification. The design of
achievement tests varies depending on whether the
inference intended to be drawn regarding examinees’
performance is the absolute or relative level of mastery
of specific knowledge and skills.
s0005
1. INTRODUCTION
Achievement testing is a general term used to describe
any measurement process or instrument whose pur-
pose is to estimate an examinee’s degree of attainment
of specified knowledge or skills. Beyond that central
purpose, achievement tests differ according to their
specific intended inference. Common inferences
include either absolute level of performance on the
specified content or relative standing vis-à-vis other
examinees on the same content. Achievement tests
may be group or individually administered. They may
consist of differing formats, including multiple-choice
items, essays, performance tasks, and portfolios.
Achievement tests are administered in diverse con-
texts. For example, they are used when the school-
related skills of preschool pupils are measured to assess
their readiness for kindergarten. During the K–12
school years, students typically take a variety of
achievement tests, ranging from teacher-made informal
assessments, to commercially prepared achievement
batteries, to state-mandated high school graduation
tests. Following formal schooling, achievement tests
are administered to assess whether examinees have an
acceptable level of knowledge or skill for safe and
competent practice in a regulated profession for
which licensure is required. In other situations, profes-
sional organizations establish certification procedures,
often including an achievement test, to determine
examinees’ eligibility to attain a credential or certifica-
tion of advanced status in a field. Even the ubiquitous
requirements to obtain a driver’s license involve an
achievement testing component.
Although the purposes and contexts may vary, fairly
uniform procedures are implemented for developing
achievement tests and for evaluating their technical
quality. Several sources exist for potential users of
achievement tests to ascertain the quality of a particu-
lar test and its suitability for their purposes.
In any context where an achievement test is used,
consequences for individual persons or groups may fol-
low from test performance. In addition, the context and
extent of achievement testing may have broad and
sometimes unforeseen consequences affecting, for exam-
ple, the security of tests, the formats used for testing, and
the relationship between testing and instruction.
2. DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES s0010
Achievement testing refers to any procedure or instru-
ment that is used to measure an examinee’s attainment
of knowledge or skills. Achievement testing can be done
informally, as in when a teacher asks a student to per-
form a skill such as reading aloud or demonstrating
correct laboratory technique. More formal, and perhaps
more common, achievement tests are routinely adminis-
tered in educational and occupational settings. Exam-
ples of formal achievement testing in education would
include spelling tests, chemistry lab reports, end-of-unit
tests, homework assignments, and so on.
More formal achievement testing is evident in large-
scale, commercially available standardized instruments.
The majority of these achievement tests would be
referred to as standardized to the extent that the publish-
ers of the instruments develop, administer, and score the
tests under uniform, controlled conditions. It is impor-
tant to note, however, that the term ‘‘standardized’’ is
(a) unrelated to test format (although the multiple-choice
format is often used for standardized tests, any format
may be included) and (b) not synonymous with norm
referenced (although sometimes the term ‘‘standardized’’
is used to indicate that a test has norms).
Examples of standardized achievement tests used in
K–12 education would include the Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills, the 10th edition of the Stanford Achievement Test,
and the TerraNova. These tests ordinarily consist of sev-
eral subtests, measuring achievement in specific narrow
areas such as language arts, mathematics, science, and
study skills. The composite index formed from these
subtests (often referred to as a ‘‘complete battery score’’)
provides a more global measure of academic achievement.
The preceding tests are also usually administered in
a group setting, although individually administered
achievement tests are also available and are designed
for administration in a one-on-one setting with indi-
vidual students, usually of very young age. Examples
of individually administered achievement tests in-
clude the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement,
the third edition of the Developmental Indicators
for the Assessment of Learning, and the Brigance
Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills.
Following secondary schooling, achievement testing
continues in colleges and universities, primarily in the
 Achievement Tests
form of classroom achievement measures, but would
also include standardized in-training examinations and
board examinations for persons pursuing professional
careers. Achievement testing has a long history in di-
verse occupational fields. Achievement tests are rou-
tinely administered to ascertain levels of knowledge or
skills when screening or selecting applicants for positions
in business and industry. These tests have traditionally
been administered in paper-and-pencil format, although
technology has enabled administration via computer or
over the Internet to be secure, fast, and accessible. For
example, one vendor of computerized achievement tests
offers computerized ‘‘work sample’’ achievement tests to
assist human resources personnel in selecting applicants
for positions in legal offices, food service, information
technology, accounting, medical offices, and others.
Many state, federal, and private organizations also
provide achievement tests for a variety fields in
which licensure or certification is required.
s0015
3. TYPES OF ACHIEVEMENT TESTS
In the previous section, it was noted that achievement
tests could be categorized according to administration
(group or individual) and scale (informal classroom
tests or more formal commercially available tests).
Another more important distinction focuses on the
intended purpose, use, or inference that is to be made
from the observed test score.
Less formal classroom achievement tests are usually
developed by a teacher to align with an instructional
unit, or they may be pre-prepared by publishers of
classroom textbooks or related materials. The primary
purposes of such tests are for educators’ use in refining
instruction and assigning grades as well as for both
teacher and pupil use in understanding and responding
to individual students’ strengths and weaknesses.
More formal standardized achievement tests can also
be categorized according to the inferences they yield.
Three such types of tests—criterion-referenced tests
(CRTs), standards-referenced tests (SRTs), and norm-
referenced tests (NRTs)—are described in this section.
CRTs are designed to measure absolute achievement
of fixed objectives comprising a domain of interest. The
content of CRTs is narrow, highly specific, and tightly
linked to the specific objectives. Importantly, a criterion
for judging success on a CRT is specified a priori, and
performance is usually reported in terms of pass/fail,
number of objectives mastered, or similar terms. Thus,
an examinee’s performance or score on a CRT is
43
interpreted with reference to the criterion. The written
driver’s license test is a familiar example of a CRT.
SRTs are similar to CRTs in that they are designed to
measure an examinee’s absolute level of achievement
vis-à-vis fixed outcomes. These outcomes are narrowly
defined and are referred to as content standards. Unlike
CRTs, however, interpretation of examinees’ perfor-
mance is referenced not to a single criterion but rather
to descriptions of multiple levels of achievement called
performance standards that illustrate what performance
at the various levels means. Typical reporting methods
for SRTs would consist of performance standard cate-
gories such as basic, proficient, and advanced or begin-
ner, novice, intermediate, and expert levels. Familiar
examples of SRTs include state-mandated testing for
K–12 students in English language arts, mathematics,
and so on to the extent that the tests are aligned with
the state’s content standards in those subjects. At the
national level, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) is administered at regular intervals to
samples of students across the United States.
NRTs are designed to measure achievement in a
relative sense. Although NRTs are also constructed
based on a fixed set of objectives, the domain covered
by an NRT is usually broader than that covered by a
CRT. The important distinction of NRTs is that exam-
inee performance is reported with respect to the per-
formance of one or more comparison groups of other
examinees. These comparison groups are called norm
groups. Tables showing the correspondence between a
student’s performance and the norm group’s perfor-
mance are called norms. Thus, an examinee’s perfor-
mance or score on an NRT is interpreted with
reference to the norms. Typical reporting methods for
NRTs include z scores, percentile ranks, normal curve
equivalent scores, grade- or age-equivalent scores, sta-
nines, and other derived scale scores. Familiar exam-
ples of NRTs include the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
(ITBS), the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), and the
Graduate Record Examinations (GRE).
Many publishers of large-scale achievement tests for
school students also provide companion ability tests to
be administered in conjunction with the achievement
batteries. The tests are administered in tandem to
derive ability/achievement comparisons that describe
the extent to which a student is ‘‘underachieving’’ or
‘‘overachieving’’ in school given his or her measured
potential. Examples of these test pairings include the
Otis–Lennon School Abilities Test (administered with
the Stanford Achievement Test) and the Cognitive
Abilities Test (administered with the ITBS).
 44 Achievement Tests
s0020
4. ACHIEVEMENT TEST
CONSTRUCTION
Rigorous achievement test development consists of
numerous common steps. Achievement test construc-
tion differs slightly based on whether the focus of the
assessment is classroom use or larger scale. Table I
provides a sequence listing 18 steps that would be
common to most achievement test development.
In both large and smaller contexts, the test maker
would begin with specification of a clear purpose for
the test or battery and a careful delineation of the
domain to be sampled. Following this, the specific
standards or objectives to be tested are developed. If
it is a classroom achievement test, the objectives may
be derived from a textbook, an instructional unit, a
school district curriculum guide, content standards,
or another source. Larger scale achievement tests
(e.g., state mandated, standards referenced) would
begin the test development process with reference to
adopted state content standards. Standardized norm-
referenced instruments would ordinarily be based on
large-scale curriculum reviews, based on analysis of
content standards adopted in various states, or
t0005
TABLE I
Common Steps in Achievement Test Development
1. Establish need, purpose
2. Delineate domain to be tested
3. Develop specific objectives, content standards
4. Decide on item and test specifications, formats, length,
costs
5. Develop items, tasks, scoring guides
6. Conduct item/task review (editorial, appropriateness,
alignment, sensitivity)
7. Pilot/Field test items/tasks/scoring guides
8. Review item/task performance
9. Create item bank/pool
10. Assemble test form(s) according to specifications
11. Develop test administration guidelines, materials
12. Establish performance standards
13. Administer operational test forms
14. Score test
15. Evaluate preliminary item/task and examinee
performance
16. Report scores to appropriate audiences
17. Evaluate test, document test cycle
18. Update item pool, revise development procedures,
develop new items/tasks
promulgated by content area professional associations.
Licensure, certification, or other credentialing tests
would seek a foundation in job analysis or survey of
practitioners in the particular occupation. Regardless
of the context, these first steps involving grounding of
the test in content standards, curriculum, or profes-
sional practice provide an important foundation for the
validity of eventual test score interpretations.
Common next steps would include deciding on and
developing appropriate items or tasks and related scoring
guides to be field tested prior to actual administration of
the test. At this stage, test developers pay particular
attention to characteristics of items and tasks (e.g., clar-
ity, discriminating power, amenability to dependable
scoring) that will promote reliability of eventual scores
obtained by examinees on the operational test.
Following item/task tryout in field testing, a data-
base of acceptable items or tasks, called an item bank
or item pool, would be created. From this pool, opera-
tional test forms would be drawn to match previously
decided test specifications. Additional steps would be
required, depending on whether the test is to be admin-
istered via paper-and-pencil format or computer.
Ancillary materials, such as administrator guides and
examinee information materials, would also be pro-
duced and distributed in advance of test administra-
tion. Following test administration, an evaluation of
testing procedures and test item/task performance
would be conducted. If obtaining scores on the current
test form that were comparable to scores from a previ-
ous test administration is required, then statistical
procedures for equating the two test forms would
take place. Once quality assurance procedures have
ensured accuracy of test results, scores for examinees
would be reported to individual test takers and other
groups as appropriate. Finally, documentation of the
entire process would be gathered and refinements
would be made prior to cycling back through the
steps to develop subsequent test forms (Steps 5–18).
5. EVALUATING ACHIEVEMENT s0025
TESTS
In some contexts, a specific achievement test may be
required for use (e.g., state-mandated SRTs). However,
in many other contexts, potential users of an achievement
test may have a large number of options from which to
choose. In such cases, users should be aware of the aids
that exist to assist them in making informed choices.
 Achievement Tests 45

One source of information about achievement tests is
the various test publishers. Many publishers have online
information available to help users gain a better under-
standing of the purposes, audiences, and uses of their
products. Often, online information is somewhat limited
and rather nontechnical. However, in addition to pro-
viding online information, many publishers will provide
samples of test materials and technical documentation
on request to potential users. Frequently, publishers will
provide one set of these packets of information, called
specimen sets, at no charge for evaluation purposes.
When evaluating an achievement test, it is important
to examine many aspects. A number of authorities have
provided advice on how to conduct such a review. For
example, one textbook for school counselors by Whiston
contains a section titled ‘‘Selection of an Assessment
Instrument’’ that consists of several pages of advice and
a user-friendly checklist. The single authoritative source
for such information would likely be the Standards for
Educational and Psychological Testing, jointly sponsored
by the American Educational Research Association, the
American Psychological Association, and the National
Council on Measurement in Education.
Finally, a particularly useful framework for evaluat-
ing achievement tests was developed by Rudner in
1994. Table II provides a modified version of key
points identified by Rudner that should be addressed
when choosing an achievement test.
It is likely that some potential users will not have the
time or technical expertise necessary to fully evaluate
an achievement test independently. A rich source
of information exists for such users in the form of
published reviews of tests. Two compilations of
test reviews are noteworthy: Mental Measurements
Yearbook (MMY) and Tests in Print. These references
are available in nearly all academic libraries. In the case
of MMY, the editors of these volumes routinely gather
test materials and forward those materials to two inde-
pendent reviewers. The reviewers provide brief (two- to
four-page) summaries of the purpose, technical quali-
ties, and administration notes for the test. Along with
the summaries, each entry in MMY contains the publi-
cation date for the test, information on how to contact
the publisher, and cost information for purchasing the
test. In these volumes, users can compare several
options for an intended use in a relatively short time.

t0010
TABLE II
Evaluation Criteria for Achievement Tests

1. Is the purpose of the test clearly stated? What achievement construct is claimed? Is the construct or intended content domain
clearly delineated?
2. What are the intended uses of the test? What are the intended audiences for the test results?
3. For what ages, grade levels, or subject areas is the test intended?
4. Are the test materials (e.g., booklets, answer sheets) clear, engaging, and appropriate for the age/grade level of the examinees?
5. What are the costs of the test materials, scoring, training personnel, and time required to administer the test?
6. Are the procedures for administering the test clear? Is the information provided sufficiently detailed so as to provide
consistent administrations across users and contexts?
7. What are the qualifications of those who participated in the development of the test? What qualifications are required for test
administrators?
8. How were samples selected for developing, pilot testing, norming, estimating reliability, screening out potentially biased
items, and gathering validity evidence for the test? Were the samples relevant? Were they representative? Were they
collected recently?
9. Does the test yield scores of acceptable reliability? Were appropriate methods used to compute reliability estimates? If
decisions are to be made based in part on test performance, what is the evidence regarding decision consistency?
10. Is there adequate validity evidence to support the intended inferences, uses, interpretations, or meanings that will be made
from test scores? Is there evidence to support the use of the test with various groups (including non-native speakers of
English, special needs learners, students in need of testing accommodations, etc.)?
11. Is the scoring system likely to produce accurate scores? If hand scoring is involved, are scoring keys easy to use and is
conversion of raw scores to derived scores facilitated by tables, look-up charts, and the like? If machine scoring is used, are
answer documents easy for examinees to use? Are timelines and costs for scoring reasonable?
12. Do score reports provide a clear, detailed, and comprehensible summary of performance and diagnostic information? Are
users appropriately cautioned about likely misinterpretations?

Source. Adapted from Rudner (1994).

46 Achievement Tests
A fee-based search capability for locating test reviews is
available at the MMY Web site (www.unl.edu).
See Also the Following Articles
Educational Achievement and Culture
Further Reading
American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, and National Council on
Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educa-
tional and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
Brigance, A. H., & Glascoe, F. P. (1999). Brigance
Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills (rev. ed.). North
Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
Cizek, G. J. (1997). Learning, achievement, and assessment:
Constructs at a crossroads. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook
of classroom assessment (pp. 1–32). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Cizek, G. J. (2003). Detecting and preventing classroom cheat-
ing: Promoting integrity in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
CTB/McGraw–Hill. (1997). TerraNova. Monterey, CA: Author.
Gronlund, N. E. (1993). How to make achievement tests and
assessments. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2002). Stanford
Achievement Test (10th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (2001). Iowa
Tests of Basic Skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Mardell-Czudnowski, C., & Goldenberg, D. S. (1998).
Developmental indicators for the assessment of learning
(3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Rudner, L. (1994, April). Questions to ask when evaluating
tests (ERIC/AE Digest, EDO-TM-94-06). Washington, DC:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
Whiston, S. C. (2000). Principles and applications of assess-
ment in counseling. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001).
Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.