dents' motivation.
Bollon (2003) demonstrates that there are some clear disadvantages associated with both the construction and the use of school-based standardized testing. Some of the problems mentioned include: (1) low predictive strength for aptitude testing where prediction is more associated with students' household income than with true aptitude; (2) achievement tests often measure speed rather than actual knowledge of the subject area; and (3) many standard tests of aptitude, achievement and ability have serious validity problems.
However, many alternative tests suffer from the same problems. What Bollon (2000) proposes is that more research be conducted to overcome these problems with alternative tests. He does not really state why more research should not be conducted to overcome these problems with both standard tests and alternative assessment schemes. Although he doesn't say it outright, the message is clear that, in his view, standardized tests are not worth continuing research to improve them. However, if this is his point, he really does not make a sufficient case for it. He does show that problems exist in standard tests, and some of them are indeed rather serious problems. However, Bollon (2000) over-focuses on the problematic and does not even list or discuss the advantages.
Standardized tests and testing do have several advantages that Bollon (2000) does not mention. Indeed, as noted by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), standardized tests are inexpensive and easy to apply to large populations such as school students. Also, they allow comparisons of large groups in widely separated areas and can be used to, at minimum, easily assess the basic knowledge of a subject area.
Even faulty standardized tests will often provide educators with some useful information. In short, while standardized tests are often criticized as unfair, the psychometric standards applied in the development of standardized tests woul...