Discussion Announcement: Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for Adults, Interim Report (2005)
Date of post: Tue, 14 Jun 2005
From: Marie Cora
Please join the NIFL-Assessment Discussion List for a conversation on
Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for Adults, Interim Report (2005)
Date: June 20 - 24
Principle Guests: Judy Koenig and Stuart Elliot, Project Directors
The Full Committee will also be joining us as observers; their comments and insights are welcomed.
Full Committee Members:
Bob Hauser, University of Wisconsin at Madison
Judy Alamprese, ABT Associates, USA
Michael Delli Carpini, University of Pennsylvania
Vivian Gadsden, University of Pennsylvania
Andy Hartman, Classroom Teacher, formerly with Bell Policy Center
Glynda Hull, University of California at Berkeley
Rebecca Maynard, University of Pennsylvania
Lorraine McDonnell, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC
Larry Mikulecky, Indiana University
Bob Mislevy, University of Maryland
Norm Peterson, SPR Center, Minneapolis
John Poggio, University of Kansas
Rima Rudd, Harvard University
Mary Jane Schmitt, TERC, Cambridge, MA
Heide Wrigley, Aguirre International, CA and Washington DC
Dave Thissen, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Suggested preparations for this discussion:
This Interim Report can be read on-line at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11267.html
Our discussion guests are interested in sharing their thoughts on the Interim Report, providing clarification to the field on information contained in the Report, and entertaining your questions and comments, particularly in the following areas:
- Questions concerning the lowest and the highest categories of the literacy levels; specifically, questions concerning the difference between the Non-Literacy in English and Below Basic categories, and comparing the percentages of folks falling within these categories between the 1992 survey and the 2003 survey;
- An explanation of the Bookmark Standard-Setting Procedure that was utilized in the study;
- An explanation of the Quasi Contrasting Groups Procedure, that was utilized to adjust the cut scores;
- Why the Committee chose not to determine a level of performance as "necessary" or "sufficient" for effectively functioning in life; as an example of this, note that the terms used to label the levels are purely descriptive, rather than indicating a particular judgment about that level;
- An explanation of how the Committee's process differed from the original process for determining the levels and cut scores for the 1992 results;
- The recommendations that the Committee puts forth based on its research.
Please note that the Final Report is due out in the Fall of this year; the differences between the Interim and Final Reports will be
- the application of the performance levels and cut scores to the 2003 data, and
- the reporting of the percentages of adults in each level based on the 2003 results.
Please join us!
Moderator, NIFL Assessment Discussion List, and
Coordinator/Developer LINCS Assessment Special Collection at
Please note: We do not control and cannot guarantee the relevance, timeliness, or accuracy of the materials provided by other agencies or organizations via links off-site, nor do we endorse other agencies or organizations, their views, products or services.