I want to understand the differences between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessment methods, especially in educational settings. Can someone help explain this to me?
As far as I know, norm-referenced assessments compare an individual’s performance against the performance of a larger group (the norm group). In contrast, criterion-referenced assessments measure a person’s performance against specific criteria or standards.
Could someone provide more examples or insights to better distinguish these two assessment approaches?
Norm-referenced results become more reliable with a larger data set. Standardized assessments, like those used in psychoeducational evaluations, are normed on extensive numbers of test completions. For instance, the WIAT-III US version was normed on 3,000 students, while the UK version was normed on 892 individuals (Wikipedia). A larger data set enhances the validity of applying these results to future assessments.
Norm-referenced assessments aim to define or estimate what is considered normal. However, issues arise when the data set is skewed, such as when an unusually high number of students demonstrate mastery of the content. In such cases, a student might receive different scores for the same answers based on the performance of other students in the data set. This ThoughtCo article provides insights on grading on a curve.
On the other hand, criterion-referenced assessments focus on creating objective and measurable results to evaluate individual competency, rather than comparing it to the performance of others.