The questions seen on the test prove to be inventive and good quality (Brown YEAR). Although the goal of the test is not to reflect an entire curriculum, it aims at "focus[ing] deliberately on skills and conceptual strategies of knowing rather than upon the content of the knowledge," (Brown YEAR). Thus, the Bristol Tests aim to gauge a student's capabilities of knowledge and methodologies of storing and retaining that knowledge, rather than particular elements of a curriculum study. Tests depend on the grade of the student taking it, and were designed with psychological, pedagogical, and curriculum concepts at hand (Brown YEAR). Two forms of the test, Form a and B, are given at different durations of the school year to help track the changing abilities of the student from the beginning of the school year to the end. The two versions of these tests then prove to have significantly different scores within the same group of sample students (Brown YEAR). A large difference from most other achievement tests is the concept that the teacher is the main responsible role in raw scoring and subsequently transferring this raw data into measurable material. This provides a more intimate method of scoring, yet opens up questions of score reliability. These scores are then finalized into percentile rankings, much like the other achievement tests mentioned. However, issues with validity have jeopardized the true benefits of the Bristol Test (Brown YEAR). No detailed studies attesting to the validity of the test in terms of average scores of each student.
The Multiple Intelligences Development Assessment Scales (MIDAS) is aimed at exploring a multitude of various intelligences within the minds of students. Unlike other achievement tests, it allows the exploration of different types of intelligences, as based of Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences (Hiltonsmith YEAR). Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal intelligences are all measured through the batteries within this testing scale. Four forms of the test are given to different age groups. Rather than a multiple choice format, which is more common in other tests, MIDAS is given in the form of a self report, questionnaires, and interviews for all levels, adults, teens, and children. Much unlike the other assessment tests, MIDAS allows for group or individual testing (Hiltonsmith YEAR). This stems from its initial development as an interview assessment for adolescents undergoing cognitive therapy. The internal reliability of the MIDAS test was analyzed within the scope of several studies, and has been proven to have internal validity and reliability which can help push the MIDAS tests as an integral tool to open up dialogue for major decision making within children and young adults.
The final test to be examined proves quite different in nature than the previous achievement tests. The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) which aims to test emotional competency rather than scholastic achievements (Watson YEAR). It is a 110 item assessment which tests a child's ability to recognize and handle both personal and other's emotional states. It is separated into four sections, Self-Awareness, Self-Management, Social Awareness, and Social Skills. Although the test proves alternative in comparison to the other tests examined, it does prove valid in its results (Watson YEAR). It does prove incredibly reliable in measuring the emotional stability of school age children; however more study is needed in order to fully attest to its reliability.
All these tests provide crucial knowledge of individual and group development within the context of a classroom environment. The various tests provide different aspects for analysis and review, and so provide educators a direction to take their students further. However, these tests can also prove stressful and detrimental to the students themselves. Stress involved in taking such long standardized tests can discourage participation in them. Bad scores can also prove to discourage future learning. Thus, with all the positive aspects these tests provide, they also have negative ethical ramifications.
Brown, F.G. (YEAR). Bristol achievement tests. EBSCO Publishing.. Retrieved January
Fehriinger, Heather M. (2004). Contributions and limitations of Cattell's sixteen
Personality factor model. Personality Research. Retrieved January 23, 2009 at http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/fehringer.html.
Hiltonsmith, Robert W. (YEAR). MIDAS: the multiple intelligences development assessment scales [revised]. EBSCO Publishing.. Retrieved January 21, 2009.
Nitko, Anthony J. (YEAR). California achievement tests, fifth ed. EBSCO Publishing.