Foundational Competencies in Educational Measurement: A Rejoinder

Abstract What are foundational competencies in educational measurement? We published a framework for these foundational competencies in this journal (Ackerman et al. 2024) and were grateful to receive eight commentaries raising a number of important questions about the framework and its implications. We identified five cross‐cutting recommendations among the eight commentaries relating to (1) our process and purpose, (2) Artificial Intelligence, (3) ethical competencies, (4) qualitative, critical, and culturally responsive commentaries, and (5) intersecting professions in, for example, classroom assessment and content development. In this rejoinder, we respond to these five recommendations and to each of the eight commentaries in turn. We hope that discussion and consensus about foundational competencies in educational measurement continue to advance in our journals and our field.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Educational Measurement Issues and Practice
Published
2024-08-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12623
Citations
1
Primary Topic
School Choice and Performance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.10
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Foundational Competencies in Educational Measurement: A Rejoinder

Derek C. Briggs, Alina von Davier, Stefanie A. Wind, Andrew Ho et al.
1 citations
Educational Measurement Issues and Practice
School Choice and Performance
2.10
article

Foundational Competencies in Educational Measurement: A Rejoinder

Derek C. Briggs, Alina von Davier, Stefanie A. Wind, Andrew Ho, Terry A. Ackerman, Michael C. Rodriguez, Deborah L Bandalos, Howard T. Everson, Sandip Sinharay, Matthew J. Madison, Michael Russell, Susan Lottridge
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract What are foundational competencies in educational measurement? We published a framework for these foundational competencies in this journal (Ackerman et al. 2024) and were grateful to receive eight commentaries raising a number of important questions about the framework and its implications. We identified five cross‐cutting recommendations among the eight commentaries relating to (1) our process and purpose, (2) Artificial Intelligence, (3) ethical competencies, (4) qualitative, critical, and culturally responsive commentaries, and (5) intersecting professions in, for example, classroom assessment and content development. In this rejoinder, we respond to these five recommendations and to each of the eight commentaries in turn. We hope that discussion and consensus about foundational competencies in educational measurement continue to advance in our journals and our field.

Educational Measurement Issues and PracticeVol. 43(3)
Boston College (US), James Madison University (US), University of Iowa (US), Educational Testing Service (US), University of Alabama (US), City University of New York (US), University of Colorado Boulder (US), University of Minnesota System (US), University of Colorado System (US), Campo Arqueologico de Mertola (PT), Finnish Medical Society Duodecim (FI)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
School Choice and Performance
2.10
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.