panel 4 testing integrity practices and procedures for online and computer-based assessments...
TRANSCRIPT
Panel 4
Testing Integrity Practices and Procedures for Online and Computer-based Assessments
Panelists
Wayne Camara: College BoardJohn Fremer: Caveon Test Security
Wes Bruce: Indiana Department of EducationTony Alpert: SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium
Testing Integrity Practices and Procedures for Online and Computer-based Assessments
Wayne J. Camara College Board
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)
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 accountability2. 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)
Testing Integrity: Unique risks with CBTStudent High Stakes Teacher/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
Technology Machine allows access to external web resources?
NA
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.
-
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.
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).
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.
NCES Sponsored Symposium on Testing Integrity
Dr. John Fremer
February 28, 2012
President
Caveon Consulting Services
State Assessments in TransitionState Assessments in Transition
Test Security
Storm
The Perfect
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
Other test security risks will remain
Some risks will actually increase
CBT will reduce some test security risks
lost or stolen test books
unauthorized access to tests
tampering with answer sheets
copying during testing
CBT will reduce some test security risks
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
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
21st Century Solutions
Advances in the detection of security anomalies andinvestigative data forensics, enabled through CBT,provide sophisticated means to heighten security
Available detection technologies and techniques should be incorporated as routine, standard practice
21st Century Solutions (cont)
Economies of scale and experience will make these security safeguards
• affordable
• cost effective
• easy to understand
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
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
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
State Assessments in TransitionState Assessments in Transition
Test Security
Storm
The Perfect
NCES Sponsored Symposium on Testing Integrity
Dr. John Fremer
February 28, 2012
President
Caveon Consulting Services
Transitioning Testing Integrity from Paper to Computer
Wes BruceIndiana Department of Education
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)
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
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
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?
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
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
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
Secure Testing on ComputersTesting Integrity Symposium
Tony Alpert – Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)
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
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
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
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