The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only periodic measure of student achievement based on national probability samples, and it is the only method by which states can validly compare the academic progress of all their students against common high standards.
Since 1995, AIR has maintained the NAEP Validity Studies Panel (NVS), an independent panel of experts that meets to commission and discuss research addressing validity considerations for NAEP.
Below is a complete bibliography of reports produced to date by the NVS Validity Studies Panel:
Beaton, A. E., & Chromy, J. R. (2010). NAEP Trends: Main NAEP vs. Long-Term Trend.
Beaton, A. E. & Chromy, J. R. (2007). Partitioning NAEP Trend Data.
Beaton, A. E., Linn, R. L., & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (2012). Alternative Approaches to Setting Performance Standards for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Bock, R. D. & Zimowsi, M. F. (1998). Feasibility Studies of Two-Stage Testing in Large-Scale Educational Assessment: Implications for NAEP.
Bohrnstedt, G., Kitmitto, S., & Park, J.B. (2017). Initial Tables From the 2015 Computer Access and Familiarity Study.
Chromy, J.R. (1998). The Effects of Finite Sampling on State Assessment Sample Requirements.
Chromy, J. & Mosquin, P. (2004). Federal Sample Sizes for Confirmation of State Tests in No Child Left Behind.
Daro, P., Hughes, G. B., & Stancavage, F. (2015). Study of the Alignment of the 2015 NAEP Mathematics Items at Grades 4 and 8 to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for Mathematics.
Daro, P., Stancavage, F., Ortega, M., DeStefano, L., & Linn, R. (2007). Validity Study of the NAEP Mathematics Assessment: Grades 4 and 8.
DeStefano, L. & Johnson, J. (2013). Study of the Feasibility of a NAEP Mathematics Accessible Block Alternative.
Durán, R. P. (2000). Implications of Electronic Technology for the NAEP Assessment.
Durán, R. P. et. al. (2020). Effects of Visual Representations and Associated Interactive Features on Student Performance on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Pilot Science Scenario-Based Tasks.
Hedges, L. V. & Vevea, J. L. (1997). A Study of Equating in NAEP.
Hedges, L. V., Konstantopoulos, S., & Thoreson, A. (2000). Computer Use and Its Relation to Academic Achievement in Mathematics, Reading, and Writing.
Hedges, L. V. & Bandeira de Mello, V. (2013). A Validity Study of the NAEP Full Population Estimates.
Hughes, G., Behuniak, P., Norton, S., Kitmitto, S., & Buckley, J. (2019). NAEP Validity Studies Panel Responses to the Reanalysis of TUDA Mathematics Scores.
Jaeger, R. M. (1998). Reporting Results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Jakwerth, P. R., Stancavage, F. B., & Reed, E. D. (1999). An Investigation of Why Students Do Not Respond to Questions.
Kitmitto, S., Bohrnstedt, G., Park, J.B., Bertling, J., & Almonte, D. (2018). Developing New Indices to Measure Digital Technology Access and Familiarity.
Linn, R. L., McLaughlin, D., Jiang, T., & Gallagher, L. (2004). Assigning Adaptive NAEP Booklets Based on State Assessment Scores: A Simulation Study of the Impact on Standard Errors.
Linn, R., McLaughlin, D., & Thissen, D. (2009). Utility and Validity of NAEP Linking.
McLaughlin, D., Gallagher, L., & Stancavage, F. (2004). Evaluation of Bias Correction Methods for “Worst-case” Selective Non-participation in NAEP.
McLaughlin, D.H., Scarloss, B.A., Stancavage, F.B., & Blankenship, C.D. (2005). Using State Assessments to Assign Booklets to NAEP Students to Minimize Measurement Error: An Empirical Study in Four States.
McLaughlin, D. H., Scarloss, B. A., Stancavage, F. B., & Blankenship, C. D. (2005). Using State Assessments to Impute Achievement of Students Absent from NAEP: An Empirical Study in Four States.
Mullis, I. V. S. (2019). White Paper on 50 Years of NAEP Use: Where NAEP Has Been and Where It Should Go Next.
Mullis, I. V. S. (1997). Optimizing State NAEP: Issues and Possible Improvements.
Mullis, I. V. S., Bohrnstedt, G. W., Preuschoff, A. C., de los Reyes, I., Stancavage, F., & Martin, M. O. (2012). Examining NAEP Achievement in Relation to School Testing Conditions in the 2010 Assessments.
Nellhaus, J., Behuniak, P., & Stancavage, F. (2009). Guiding Principles and Suggested Studies for Determining When the Introduction of a New Assessment Framework Necessitates a Break in Trend in NAEP.
Pearson, P. D. & Garavaglia, D. R. (1997). Improving the Information Value of Performance Items in Large Scale Assessments.
Stancavage, F. B. & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (Eds.) (2013) Examining the Content and Context of the Common Core State Standards: A First Look at Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Stancavage, F. B. et al. (2002). An Agenda for NAEP Validity Research.
Stancavage, F., Shepard, L., McLaughlin, D., Holtzman, D., Blankenship, C., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Sensitivity of NAEP to the Effects of Reform-Based Teaching and Learning in Middle School Mathematics.
Thissen, D. (2012). Validity Issues Involved in Cross-Grade Statements About NAEP Results.
Valencia, S., Wixson, K., Ackerman, T., & Sanders, E. (2017). Identifying Text-Task-Reader Interactions Related to Item and Block Difficulty in the National Assessment for Educational Progress Reading Assessment.
Weston, T. J. (2002). The Validity of Oral Accommodation in Testing.