Cover: Interim report, the reliability of Vermont portfolio scores in the 1992-93 school year

Interim report, the reliability of Vermont portfolio scores in the 1992-93 school year

Published 1994

by Daniel Koretz, Stephen P. Klein, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Brian M. Stecher

Purchase Print Copy

Add to Cart Paperback17 pages Free

Discusses the quality of the assessment data from the second year of the Vermont student portfolio program. The progress shown in scoring mathematics portfolios is encouraging but still leaves room for improvement. The continuing low reliability of writing portfolio scoring suggests weaknesses in the design and operation of that part of the program, which might be improved by more conventional definition of types of tasks and simpler, perhaps genre-specific rubrics.

Originally published in:: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles.

This report is part of the RAND reprint series. The Reprint was a product of RAND from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.