Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Panel 4 Testing Integrity Practices and Procedures for Online and Computer-based Assessments Panelists Wayne Camara: College Board John Fremer: Caveon.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Panel 4 Testing Integrity Practices and Procedures for Online and Computer-based Assessments Panelists Wayne Camara: College Board John Fremer: Caveon."— Presentation transcript:

1 Panel 4 Testing Integrity Practices and Procedures for Online and Computer-based Assessments Panelists Wayne Camara: College Board John Fremer: Caveon Test Security Wes Bruce: Indiana Department of Education Tony Alpert: SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium

2 Testing Integrity Practices and Procedures for Online and Computer-based Assessments Wayne J. Camara College Board

3 CBT vs. Paper Online testing offers numerous advantages over P&P testing, including features which can improve test security. As with all assessments, the intended purpose and potential consequences is suggestive of the types of threats to test integrity we need to focus upon. Threats to all assessments: item exposure, candidate authenticity, data transmission & storage, proctor and personnel integrity, system integrity (prevent interruptions and irregularities)

4 Assessment Purposes and Threats to Testing Integrity Cheating increases with age of student, bandwidth & distance (Rowe, 2004). Summative assessments – different threats emerge for different intended uses of scores: 1.School and district accountability 2.Student rewards (endorsed diploma, entry into college credit bearing course) 3.Teacher and educator accountability (financial incentives or penalties, disciplinary-based actions) 4.Student barriers (graduation, retention, mandatory developmental programs, college remediation courses)

5 Testing Integrity: Unique risks with CBT Student High StakesTeacher/Educ. Account. Extended testing window Students disclose items/tasks to other students or post on social networks to those testing later in window Educators provide instruction on specific tasks to aid students testing later in the window Performance tasks Easier to recall, more difficult to create comparable tasks Provide procedural solutions Instruction targeted to tasks Reuse of items – exposure rate Greater chance of intentional or nonintentional disclosure If reused over years (pre-testing, equating) greater risks of teaching to task / item Testing environ - CBT lab Easier to hide prohibited materials behind screen. Use handheld devices to cheat. Teacher monitors and changes student responses. Small groups settings present greater challenges Assisting students during testing Same risk as P&P unless items spiraled. Need privacy carrels Teacher views student progress and responses – may offer hints to individual student or group TechnologyMachine allows access to external web resources? NA

6 Processes/policies that could mitigate risks to integrity of CBT test results Processes and policies must be tailored to the types of risks or threats to test integrity that are anticipated based on the intended use, stakes and consequences for school, students and educators. Reduce risk of item exposure via – extended testing windows with same form present the biggest security threat when tests used for high stakes: More robust item banks and spiraling Use of multistage adaptive models Linear forms require more forms for the same testing window or single use Reuse of items operationally, for equating or pretesting: Reuse of scenarios, simulations, or extended performance tasks can more easily be captured and hence have less validity when exposed for any length of time. Limit disclosure and reuse over several years. Limit reuse of performance tasks (extended multi-year window w/out release or develop hundreds of tasks to pool from). Limit retesting – different forms/item pools. -

7 Recommendations: Processes/policies that could mitigate risks to integrity of CBT test results Administration and Scoring Reduce opportunity for cheating – send message cheating is not tolerated. Classroom teachers should not be administering tests to students in their classes – there is simply too much temptation. Proctors should have ‘no stake’ in outcome or risk collusion. Environment should preclude copying responses from students seated adjacent (spiraling, different forms, or some physical obstruction); Document seating and proctors. Mandatory training of proctors and administrators handling test materials; verify understanding of appropriate test procedures and consequences of unauthorized procedures. Student reads and signs statement like an honor code or integrity policy. Prohibit all handheld electronic devices (smartphones, calculators). Employ variety of item formats & constructed response tasks to reduce ease of cheating. Impose conditions on retest opportunities – beware of students unplugging equipment to restart or retest.

8 Recommendations: Processes/policies that could mitigate risks to integrity of CBT test results Technology Prepare for unexpected – it will occur. Ensure students can not access web resources (outside the system). Items and data are encrypted and stored on secure server (not desktops). Paper forms use different item banks and chain of custody established. Audit social networks, school preparation, blogs. Ensure high system reliability – outages, interruptions and irregularities which require candidates to stop and start, retest, or complete paper forms. Guard against ‘sniffers that decipher and read items/responses and attempts to have test administrators disclose passwords (McClure et al, 2001). Disable network capabilities, printers. Conduct formal web crawling before/after. Use Intrusion Detection Software to catch attacks prior to their occurrence. Backup grade book or roster in case of attack and chances. Statistical Checks on aberrance rates, retest or score volatility statistics (individual, site) – does data conform to test response models? Check on irregular latencies, response patterns. High/Low Aberrance score, Cheating index, Thresholds (Impara et al, 2005) Distance assessments - When online performance exceeds traditional tests – Have some traditional assessments (Rowe, 2004).

9 National Council for Measurement In Education (NCME) Draft Guidelines on Testing &Data Integrity Data integrity is shared ethical and professional requirement. Need to develop and implement a comprehensive data integrity policy and why its important. – Tailored to use of test. – Training for all levels with examples of unacceptable behaviors (nondisclosure, confidentiality, participation forms) Proactive prevention – eliminate opportunities. Comprehensive data collection and maintenance. Comprehensive policies for reporting cheating, security breaches, suspicious activities (dB & investigations). Biometrics, data forensics, statistical patterns, etc.

10 Thank you Wayne Camara,

11 NCES Sponsored Symposium on Testing Integrity Dr. John Fremer February 28, 2012 President Caveon Consulting Services

12 State Assessments in Transition Test Security Storm The Perfect

13 State assessments face an impending Perfect Test Security Storm  mandated assessments tied to federal funding  teacher evaluations tied to test scores  more students/teachers admit to cheating on tests  cheating techniques becoming more sophisticated  CBT test windows increasing test item exposure  use of State tests as a graduation requirement

14 Other test security risks will remain Some risks will actually increase CBT will reduce some test security risks

15  lost or stolen test books  unauthorized access to tests  tampering with answer sheets  copying during testing CBT will reduce some test security risks

16  assisting during an exam  stealing/memorizing test questions  pre-knowledge of exam content  collusion among test takers  technology-assisted cheating Other test security risks will remain

17  exposure of items for extended periods  accessing secure data during transmission  pre-knowledge later in testing windows  reduced funds allocated to test security due to increased development costs Some risks will actually increase  stealing items for an underground market

18 21 st Century Solutions Advances in the detection of security anomalies and investigative data forensics, enabled through CBT, provide sophisticated means to heighten security Available detection technologies and techniques should be incorporated as routine, standard practice

19 21 st Century Solutions (cont) Economies of scale and experience will make these security safeguards affordable cost effective easy to understand

20 Unusual Gains Analysis Similarity of Responses Response Pattern Aberrance Analysis Response Time Analyses Web Monitoring Advanced Security Analysis and Detection Techniques for CBT Occurrence of Perfect Scores Answer Changing Analyses

21 Ten Recommendations Moving Forward 1. Acknowledge the seriousness of security issues 2. Expect cheating and plan to be proactive 3. Use multiple detection methods and forensic statistics 4. Minimize testing windows 5. Strengthen the chain of custody

22 6. Increase the emphasis on security training 7. Allocate adequate resources for test security 8. Pilot techniques for detection of cheating 9. Continue to learn from others 10.Monitor new advances in anomaly detection and prevention (e.g. “Epidemiological Model”) Ten Recommendations Moving Forward

23 State Assessments in Transition Test Security Storm The Perfect

24 NCES Sponsored Symposium on Testing Integrity Dr. John Fremer February 28, 2012 President Caveon Consulting Services

25 Transitioning Testing Integrity from Paper to Computer Wes Bruce Indiana Department of Education

26 Be thoughtful about the transition Usually the move from paper to CBT is phased – By grade, content or school So be thoughtful in how you will transition the measures of test integrity – You want specific strategies for online Some are the same, some complementary, some unique – But the field must feel that there is a singular system in place - combined reporting (KISS)

27 CBT Security is Different Leverage the differences of CBT – Infinitely more data is available on every student Your challenge is to determine how much of that you can turn into useful “information” What will you systematically use and what will be in your “back pocket” – Time spent per item – Time spent per “session” – The “system” time of each response – The actual order in which students answer test items – The “real” pattern of item response changes

28 CBT Security is not Unique Many of the metrics that we use with paper are equally valid for CBT – Score change metrics School and student – Part to whole – Analysis of items correct vs. item difficulty School, class and student – Perfect Score Reports

29 Illustration – Erasure Analysis Paper (Generic) – Scanners detect when (if) multiple responses have been selected for a single item If one is “darker” it is seen as the final “answer” – Lighter response flagged as an “erasure” In “Erasure Analysis” logic and statistics are applied to these multiple “marks” – If lighter one is “wrong” and darker is “right” item is flagged as W to R – If a student, class or school exceeds threshold value (4 sd) they are flagged/flogged » Anybody take statistics in college?

30 Illustration – Erasure Analysis 2 – Concerns We do not “know” what the actual pattern of student responses was. W-R or R-W-R We do not know when the “change” was made or how long the student took to make that change CBT can provide more information for analysis – Potential for fewer false positives, you can identify “true” W-R Can factor in other dimensions (i.e. filter on “when”) But it is still statistical & subject to the same limitations

31 Illustration – Erasure Analysis 3 We provide a single combined “Erasure Analysis” for schools (Even though there are no “erasures” on CBT) – “Identical” fields for paper and CBT – Same “flagging” criteria for both – Same expectations for investigation and reporting Trying to make these exceptions easy to understand and communicate Think about the context and the cognitive load

32 CBT Security is not Omnipotent Be careful Still inferential – It may provide “stronger” or additional evidence – But it “proves” nothing – You may know “what” but you still do not know who or how – Investigations still matter Press loves a scandal and CBT can help you create an even bigger one

33 Wes Bruce

34 Secure Testing on Computers Testing Integrity Symposium Tony Alpert – Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)

35 State Supports as Prerequisite Model rigorous implementation by making sure the system works as described Establish a culture of security within the Department and across the state Establish policies that address – The larger network of adults that are involved in CBT vs. paper – The additional complexities of logistics – The additional complexities of new item types

36 State Supports as Prerequisite (cont) Delineate minimum training requirements based on roles and responsibilities Provide practice versions of the applications early enough Establish help-desk supports consistent with longer testing windows Conduct user acceptance testing in the schools

37 Local Supports as Partner Be aware of which adults can be in the secure testing environment Use the opportunities for sample tests/applications Provide clear expectations for which individuals must attend trainings Provide clear path for identification and resolution of problems

38 Local Supports as Partner Be aware that CBT can be overwhelming for new teachers and substitutes Don’t expose Secure Student Identifiers Provide clear path for identification and resolution of problems

Download ppt "Panel 4 Testing Integrity Practices and Procedures for Online and Computer-based Assessments Panelists Wayne Camara: College Board John Fremer: Caveon."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google