Skip to main content
Skip Navigation

NAEP Technical DocumentationNAEP Scoring

   

Preliminary Activities

Training for Scoring

Scoring Monitoring

Three types of cognitive items are scored for NAEP.  Multiple-choice item responses are captured by high-speed scanners during student booklet processing. Short constructed-response items (typically those with two or three valid score points) and extended constructed-response items (typically those with four or more valid score points) are scored by trained personnel using images of student responses also captured during processing.

Scoring a large number of short and extended constructed-response items with a high level of accuracy and reliability within a limited time frame is essential to the success of NAEP. To ensure reliable and efficient scoring, NAEP takes the following steps:

  • develops focused and explicit scoring guides that match the criteria delineated in the assessment frameworks;

  • recruits qualified and experienced scorers, trains them, and verifies their ability to score particular questions through qualifying tests;

  • employs an image-processing and scoring system that routes images of student responses directly to the scorers so they can focus on scoring rather than paper routing;

  • monitors scorer consistency through ongoing reliability checks, including second scoring;

  • assesses the quality of scorer decision-making through frequent monitoring by NAEP assessment experts; and

  • documents all training, scoring, and quality control procedures in the technical reports.

The table below presents a general overview of recent NAEP scoring activities.

Processing and scoring totals, national and state assessments, by subject area and year: various years, 2000–2013
YearSubject areaGradeNumber of booklets scoredNumber of constructed responses scoredNumber of individual 
cognitive items
Number of team leadersNumber of scorers

NOTE: Number of responses scored includes second scores. Data for 2011 mathematics, reading, and science represent national and state assessments; data for 2011 writing represents national assessment only. The 2011 writing assessment was computer-based. Data for 2010 civics, geography, and U.S. history were combined into one social sciences assessment; trainers and teams scored a mixture of items from all three subject areas.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Various Assessments, various years: 2000-2013.

 

2013Mathematics4,8,12386,0643,977,28533316182
Reading4,8,12384,2722,782,99113627304
2012Economics1210,95075,22934319
2011Mathematics4,8388,6383,786,42217219151
Reading4,8382,2052,819,9509023256
Science8122,4091,544,6699617178
Writing8,1252,452104,9584417183
2010Civics4,8,1226,771261,98911923153
Geography4,8,1226,608366,54317223153
U.S. History4,8,1230,987387,62516723153
2009Mathematics4,8,12380,0424,293,56129816175
Reading4,8,12392,1963,709,29931130336
Science4,8,12331,9674,592,47041245430
2008Arts87,865181,85492657
2007Mathematics4,8422,2003,912,83543538187
Reading4,8457,8003,623,12634651362
Writing8,12205,500729,9404050328
2006U.S. History4,8,1238,400458,1721322165
Civics4,8,1233,200282,977842065
Economics1217,600128,73532830
2005Mathematics4,8,12354,5004,435,83141426267
Reading4,8,12340,2003,773,69122636363
Science4,8,12349,1004,424,51153939393
2003Mathematics4,8349,6004,719,46413533418
Reading4,8350,7003,913,14713632397
2002Reading4,8,12308,5004,023,86115033330
Writing4,8,12285,900608,2696029270
2001Geography4,8,1227,500381,47757981
U.S. History4,8,1232,700399,182479 81
2000Mathematics4,8,12253,9003,856,21119916177
Reading48,500123,1004614702
Science4,8,12240,9004,398,02129520155

The table below presents a general overview of recent NAEP Long Term Trend scoring activities.

Processing and scoring totals, long-term trend assessments, by subject area and age: 2004, 2008 and 2012
YearSubject areaAgeNumber of
booklets
scored
Number of
constructed
responses
Number of
individual
cognitive items
2012Mathematics long-term trend9, 13, 1726,210422,192181
Reading long-term trend9, 13, 1726,35247,24119
2008Mathematics long-term trend9, 13, 1728,465452,994179
Reading long-term trend9, 13, 1726,62151,74319
2004Mathematics long-term trend9, 13, 1740,3001,082,923219
Reading long-term trend9, 13, 1741,200131,49634
NOTE: Number of responses scored includes second scores.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Mathematics and Reading Long-Term Trend Assessments: 2004, 2008 and 2012.

As new NAEP items are created, tested, and improved, test development staff create scoring guides using as specific examples a range of actual student responses captured by the materials-processing staff. The scoring and test development staffs create training materials matching the assessment framework criteria. For future assessments, continuous documentation assures that the scoring staff will train and score the item in the same way that it was originally implemented. This repeatability allows reporting on trends in student performance over time.

NAEP Scoring Staff

Scorers score student responses. Scoring supervisors provide logistical support to the trainers and help monitor team activities. Trainers are responsible for training both scorers and supervisors on specific content and for assuring that team scoring performance meets expectations. Content leads for each subject area (Reading, Science, etc.) oversee the trainers and provide support as needed.

Scorers must have a minimum of a baccalaureate degree from a four-year college or university. An advanced degree and scoring experience and/or teaching experience are preferred. In some subjects, scorers must complete a placement test, used as a tool to identify scorers with appropriate content knowledge. During the training process, scoring teams are trained so that each student response can be scored consistently. Following training, for all extended constructed-response items and some short constructed-response items with particularly complex scoring guides, each scorer is given a pre-scored qualification set of student responses to score. Qualification standards for each item vary according to the number of score levels for the item. Individual scorer results are retained for all qualification sets.

Scoring supervisors and trainers are selected based upon many factors including their previous experience, educational and professional backgrounds, demonstration of a strong understanding of the scoring criteria, and strong interpersonal communication skills and organizational abilities.

NAEP scoring teams usually consist of 10-12 scorers who are led by a scoring supervisor and a trainer. Prior to the scoring effort, all personnel are intensively trained. The trainers who train the scorers, the supervisors who oversee a group of scorers, and the scorers themselves are all given both general scoring training and item-specific content training.

NAEP Scoring System

The NAEP electronic scoring system offers the latest technology coupled with secure network communications to transmit images of student responses to the trained scorers and to receive back the scores assigned by them. Student responses are scanned from the original test booklets; the actual test booklets can be accessed and referenced if needed. The scorer sees each student response in isolation on a computer video screen and assigns a score. The scorer cannot access any other responses from the student for a particular item or from other items the student answered. As each response is scored, another student response is shown for scoring, until all responses for an item have been scored.

During scoring, the NAEP electronic scoring system provides documentation of numerous scoring metrics. Reports on item and scoring performance can be retrieved as needed. In addition, custom reports of daily activities are sent out nightly to development, scoring, and analysis staff to monitor NAEP scoring quality and progress.

All assessments are scored item by item so that scorers train on one item and one scoring guide at a time. This method is efficient only with electronic presentation of student responses.

NAEP Scoring Procedures

During the scoring of a particular item, a percentage of scored responses is randomly recirculated by the system to be rescored by a second scorer in order to check the consistency of current-year scoring. Five percent of responses are second-scored for large state samples, and 25 percent of responses are second-scored for smaller national samples. This comparison of first and second scores yields the within-year interrater agreement.

In addition, NAEP trend scoring is used to compare the consistency of scoring over time (i.e., cross-year interrater agreement). During trend scoring, the NAEP electronic scoring system allows for the presentation of a pool of scored responses from a prior assessment to current scorers. Comparing current scores to the scores given in the prior assessment offers the ability to generate reports to evaluate scoring consistency over time for a specific NAEP item.

Backreading of current year responses ensures frequent monitoring of scorer decision-making by supervisory staff. Backreading allows the supervisor to review responses (with scores assigned) already scored by each scorer and to assure that each scorer is applying the scoring guide correctly. About 5 percent of each scorer's output is monitored through backreading.

During training and scoring, any changes to existing documentation are captured by scoring staff, shared across scoring teams, and incorporated into the history of the NAEP item. This is reviewed prior to the next scoring effort.


Last updated 28 June 2017 (DC)