The RTD Alignment Scale presents five discrete levels of alignment and is applicable to the full range of item types and classroom activities. Because valid items elicit evidence of the Targeted Cognition for the range of typical test takers, this scale focuses on the quality of the evidence that the item provides. It considers whether test takers who have produced the desired work product have produced strong observable evidence of proficiency with the Targeted Cognition and whether test takers who have fallen short of providing the desired work product have produced strong evidence of a lack of proficiency with the Targeted Cognition. That is, it is very mindful of the twin problems false positive and false negative evidence.
0: No Alignment
The item is not at all aligned with the Targeted Cognition (i.e., the KSAs revealed by a close reading of the standard). There is no way to use the Targeted Cognition to help solve the item, work from the stem to the key or otherwise provide the desired work product.
There is no information at all about proficiency with the Targeted Cognition from successful or unsuccessful test takers.
1: Optional-Use Alignment
The item demonstrates mere Optional-Use Alignment when use of the Targeted Cognition to generate the desired evidence is optional for the test taker. There is a way to use the Targeted Cognition to get help solve the item, work from the stem to the key or otherwise provide the desired work product, but it is not the only path. The test taker could also solve the item, work from the stem to the key or otherwise provide the desired work withoutusing the Targeted Cognition.
Therefore, it cannot be clear that even successful test takers have any proficiency with the standard and unsuccessful test takers provide no information about a lack of proficiency with the Targeted Cognition. That is noise from the alternate paths through the item masks any signal that some test takers might generate from the Intended Task. This is an extraordinarily weak form of alignment.
2: Non-Dominant Alignment
The item demonstrates Non-Dominant Alignment when the Targeted Cognition is the not the pivotal step of the cognitive path that solves the item, gets from the stem to the key or otherwise provides the desired work product. Instead, misunderstanding or misapplication of other cognition is likely to be the barrier that prevents test takers from successfully completing the item. To demonstrate Non-Dominant Alignment, the task must depend upon other cognition which is not appropriate to take for granted among the range of typical test takers for this test.
Successful test takers do provide some information about their proficiency with the standard, but unsuccessful test takers do not. Thus, this a weak form of alignment.
3. Task Alignment
The item demonstrates Task Alignment when -- although the cognitive path to a successful response doesdepend appropriately on the Targeted Cognition – the evidence that that item captures is not necessarily that of misunderstandings or misapplications of the Targeted Cognition. Instead, it conflates evidence of othermisunderstandings or misapplications with appropriate evidence regarding the Targeted Cognition.
Like Non-Dominantly Aligned items, there is information from successful test takers, but because the item captures evidence of mistakes that are not a results of mistakes with or misunderstanding of the Targeted Cognition, the evidence it provides of lack of proficiency is quite weak.
4. Item Alignment
The item is fully aligned to the Targeted Cognition.
Successful test takers provide strong observable evidence that they have proficiency with the Targeted Cognition and unsuccessful test takers provide strong observable evidence that they lack proficiency with the Targeted Cognition.