DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluating the Comparability of Scores from Achievement Test Variations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluating the Comparability of Scores from Achievement Test Variations Evaluating the Comparability of Scores from Achievement Test Variations Phoebe C. Winter, Editor Copyright © 2010 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC All rights reserved. THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra‐state jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. The Council seeks member consensus on major educational issues and expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public. Evaluating the Comparability of Scores from Achievement Test Variation Based on research funded by an Enhanced Assessment Grant from the U.S. Department of Education, awarded to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, in partnership with the Council of Chief State School Officers and its SCASS TILSA and SCASS CAS. Publication of this document shall not be construed as endorsement of the views expressed in it by the U.S. Department of Education, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, or the Council of Chief State School Officers. COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS Steven Paine (West Virginia), President Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director Phoebe C. Winter, Editor Council of Chief State School Officers One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001‐1431 Phone (202) 336‐7000 Fax (202) 408‐8072 www.ccsso.org ISBN: 1‐884037‐28‐3 Copyright © 2010 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC All rights reserved. Acknowledgments This research project benefited from the support and advice of members of two of CCSSO’s State Collaboratives on Assessment and Student Standards: the Technical Issues in Large-scale Assessment consortium, led by Doug Rindone; and the Comprehensive Assessment Systems for Title I consortium, led by Carole White. The editor wants to thank particularly the state department staff members of the project research team for their work and thoughtful participation in the project: Mildred Bazemore, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Jane Dalton, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Tammy Howard, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Laura Kramer, Mississippi Department of Education Joseph Martineau, Michigan Department of Education Nadine McBride, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Marcia Perry, Virginia Department of Education Liru Zhang, Delaware Department of Education Contents Section 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Comparability and Test Variations............................................................................ 1 Section 2: Studies of Comparability Methods Chapter 2: Summary of the Online Comparability Studies for One State’s End-of-course Program ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 3: Evaluating the Comparability of English and Spanish Video Accommodations for English Language Learners....................................................................................................... 33 Chapter 4: Evaluating Linguistic Modifications: An Examination of the Comparability of a Plain English Mathematics Assessment.................................................................................... 69 Chapter 5: Evaluating the Comparability of Scores from an Alternative Format..................... 95 Chapter 6: Modified Tests for Modified Achievement Standards: Examining the Comparability of Scores to the General Test .......................................................................... 105 Section 3: Literature Reviews Related to Comparability of Various Types of Test Variations Chapter 7: Comparability of Paper-based and Computer-based Tests: A Review of the Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 119 Chapter 8: Validity Issues and Empirical Research on Translating Educational Achievement Tests ........................................................................................................................................ 153 Chapter 9: Considerations for Developing and Implementing Translations of Standardized K– 12 Assessments ....................................................................................................................... 185 Chapter 10: Impact of Language Complexity on the Assessment of ELL Students: A Focus on Linguistic Simplification of Assessment................................................................................. 205 Chapter 11: Alternative Formats: A Review of the Literature................................................ 223 Section 4: Summary Chapter 12: Where Are We and Where Could We Go Next?................................................. 233 Section 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Comparability and Test Variations Phoebe C. Winter Pacific Metrics In 2006, a consortium of state departments of education, led by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and the Council of Chief State School Officers, was awarded a grant from the U.S. Department of Education1 to investigate methods of determining comparability of variations of states’ assessments used to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB peer review guidelines includes a requirement that states using variations of their assessments based on grade level academic achievement standards must provide evidence of comparability of proficiency from these variations to proficiency on the general assessment2 (U.S. Department of Education, July 2007, revised January 2009). The consortium of states focused on two types of K–12 achievement test variations: computer-based tests that are built to mirror the state’s paper-based tests and test formats that are designed to be more accessible to specific student populations than the general test is. In addition, the studies conducted included a study of the comparability of an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards; the comparability issues related to those assessments are different from the ones discussed here. Researchers are beginning to think and write about comparability in a slightly different way than they have traditionally. In the recent past, comparability of test scores has been thought of mostly in terms of scale scores. Here, comparability is discussed in terms of the score that is being interpreted, which may be a scale score but may also be a less fine-grained score such as an achievement level score. Comparability has been thought of in terms of linking and, in state testing programs, most often in terms of equating. Here, linking scores across test forms is discussed, but the issues are expanded to include the comparability of achievement level scores from tests of very different formats. The issues include, and in the case of alternative formats go beyond, those related to what is referred to as “extreme linking” (Dorans, Pommerich, and Holland, 2007, p. 356; Middleton and Dorans, May, 2009, draft). The details of what is meant by score comparability are still being defined as the measurement community conducts research and explores theoretical bases for comparability. The language used to discuss comparability is evolving as well. For example, Dorans and Walker (2007) differentiate between “interchangeability” and “comparability,” reserving the first term for scores that have been equated, and Kolen and Brennan (2004) have used “comparability” as an outcome of linking (see, for example, p. 3). Standards for Educational and Psychological 1 This work was supported by a Grant for Enhanced Assessment Instruments awarded by the U.S. Department of Education. 2 We use general assessment or test to refer to the usual format of the test, typically administered as a paper-and- pencil test. 1 Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999) uses “comparable” when discussing whether scores can be considered interchangeable (p. 57). Because the research described here is concerned primarily with the use of the scores, “interchangeable” is used to mean that a score can be used in the same way, with the same construct-based inferences, as another score. In one sense, different test formats meant to measure the same construct can be seen as alternate forms. For a computer-based test, the idea that it is an alternate form of a paper-based test is not much of a stretch from what measurement specialists are used to thinking about. To think of a portfolio-based version of a paper-and-pencil test as an alternate form of it is more of a stretch. Alternatively, test variations (other than computer-based versions of the paper-and-pencil test) can be thought of as accommodations, but that raises the question of whether accommodated tests can be thought of as alternate forms of the general, non-accommodated test. It can be seen, then, that the idea of comparability is just a part of larger issues of validity, the question of standardization and what part of the test, from administration to inference, is standardized, and how valid inferences about student achievement can be made across a large, diverse
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Tech Levels for 2017 Performance Tables
    2017 16 to 19 performance tables: qualifications in the tech level category February 2015 (replaces December 2014 version) Contents Introduction 3 Headline performance measures for 16-19 year olds 4 Qualifications that will be included in the tech level category in the 2017 16-19 performance tables 5 Tech levels in agriculture, horticulture and animal care 5 Tech levels in arts, media and publishing 9 Tech levels in accounting and finance, business, administration and law 11 Tech levels in child development and well-being 12 Tech levels in construction, planning and the built environment 13 Tech levels in engineering, manufacturing and transportation operations 16 Tech levels in health, public services and care 20 Tech levels in information and communication technology 21 Tech levels in leisure, sport, travel and tourism 22 Tech levels in retail, hospitality and commercial enterprise 23 2 Introduction This is the final list of qualifications that have been approved by the Department for Education (DfE) for teaching to 16 to 19 year olds from September 2015. These qualifications will be reported in the tech level category of the 2017 16-19 performance tables (to be published in early 2018). They will be reported alongside qualifications such as A Levels and other vocational qualifications. Qualifications that will be reported in performance tables for the first time in 2017 have an asterisk (*) after the title. Qualifications that were added to the list in February 2015 are indicated with a hash symbol (#) after the title. Tech levels are rigorous advanced (level 3) technical qualifications on a par with A Levels and recognised by employers.
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Studies for Officers
    University VIENNA and National Defense Academy VIENNA Academic Studies for Officers A Central European Perspective (Presentations of the First International Conference in Vienna, 15 – 19 March 1999) Published by Brigadier-General Gernot ALBRECHT Vienna, April 2001 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS WOLFGANG GREISENEGGER..................................................3 Welcome Address......................................................................................3 ERNEST KÖNIG..........................................................................5 Welcome Address......................................................................................5 GERNOT ALBRECHT .................................................................9 Opening Statement....................................................................................9 ARMIN A. STEINKAMM ............................................................10 The Bundeswehr University [UDBW]..................................................10 JÖRG E. P. KELLER.................................................................17 Academic Officer Training within and for the Armed Forces – a German Perspective ....................................................................................................................17 BEAT A. KÄCH .........................................................................32 The Swiss Military College ....................................................................32 ALTERO FASANO.....................................................................43
    [Show full text]
  • Referencing the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF)
    Referencing the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF) to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) Report 2019 Referencing the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) Referencing Report 2019 1 This page has been left blank deliberately. Referencing the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) Referencing Report 2019 2 PREFACE The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) was first referenced to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) in 2009. This referencing was published in 2010 as part of a report on the referencing of the National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs) of the four UK countries to the EQF. In the intervening eight years since publication, the SCQF has developed considerably, with the revision of SCQF Level Descriptors, the redefinition of SCQF Principles and a considerable expansion in the range and number of qualifications on the Framework. In 2015/16, a pilot project was undertaken to establish if the original referencing outcomes continued to be a true reflection of links between the SCQF and EQF. This report builds on the work completed in the pilot and provides a revised and updated analysis of the SCQF/EQF referencing. This report sets out the evidence that the SCQF continues to meet the ten criteria and ten quality assurance principles which govern referencing to the EQF. To provide a context for the reader, it also describes political, legal and social context in which the SCQF operates, explains the nature of the learning landscape in Scotland insofar as it relates to the SCQF, and describes the different kinds of qualifications in the Framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Education Entrance Qualifications and Exams in Europe: a Comparison
    DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES CULTURE AND EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXAMS IN EUROPE: A COMPARISON STUDY This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education. AUTHORS Cecile Hoareau McGrath, Marie Louise Henham, Anne Corbett, Niccolo Durazzi, Michael Frearson, Barbara Janta, Bregtje W. Kamphuis, Eriko Katashiro, Nina Brankovic, Benoit Guerin, Catriona Manville, Inga Schwartz, Daniel Schweppenstedde RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Markus J. Prutsch Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Lyna Pärt LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: DE, FR ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in May 2014 Brussels © European Union, 2014 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES CULTURE AND EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXAMS IN EUROPE: A COMPARISON STUDY Abstract The study analyses admission systems to higher education across ten countries, covering some countries of the European Union (France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom), a candidate country (Turkey) as well as commonly used international comparators (Australia, Japan and the US).
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Technical Qualifications in Chemistry and Related Subjects
    Royal Society of Chemistry: Higher Technical Qualifications in chemistry and related subjects. Research report written by: Jane Powell, Lena WWW.SHIFT-MEMBERSHIP.CO.UK Karlin, Tilly Barkway and Octavia Browett ©SHIFT INSIGHT 2020 Executive summary Methods Learners' journeys This report follows a literature review phase • Learners of HTQs choose them because they need a more accessible learning and presents findings from 51 qualitative interviews route or have a preference for a more applied, rather than academic, qualification. with employers, providers and learners of Higher • HTQs have diverse and mixed cohorts and tend to bring together learners from Technical Qualifications*. a wide range of work and educational backgrounds, genders and age groups. Qualitative evidence indicates that HTQs are more inclusive for non-traditional Providers' needs learners compared to university degrees. • Accounts of employers, providers and learners suggest HTQs are used to achieve • The sector is volatile, with providers describing a triple purpose: as an entry route to a variety of industries; to achieve how they responded to changing conditions progression and promotion within their current workplace or sector; and to by switching, tweaking and considering new progress into science-based undergraduate courses. HTQs currently seem to be HTQs. more successful at facilitating the last two outcomes, as school leavers with no • The reported cohort sizes were usually small and relevant work experience sometimes have a poor understanding of the diversity, could fluctuate considerably year on year, with or specifics, of careers these qualifications can lead to. projected demand sometimes not materialising in enrolments. Employers' perceptions • Individual cases suggest employer engagement • While most employers indicated that they did not have a shortage of applicants is important in making new HTQs viable.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2020 Program of Studies
    Greater Lowell Technical High School 2019-2020 Program of Studies Joseph Mastrocola, Superintendent-Director Jill Davis, Assistant Superintendent/Principal Core Values A core value is a central belief deeply understood and shared by every member of an organization. Greater Lowell Technical High School has established a set of core values to guide the actions of all students and staff and that are reflected daily in their performance building quality lives and a positive school culture conductive to learning for all. All members of the Greater Lowell Technical High School Learning Community will strive to: R.E.A.C.H. Respect - We treat ourselves, others and our surroundings with dignity through words and actions Effort- We work to the best of our abilities to make continuous progress without giving up or giving in Accountability - We own our words and actions and have the courage to accept responsibility for our decisions Commitment- We show dedication to our success, our school and our community Honesty- We act with integrity and value the importance of truthfulness Greater Lowell Technical High School School Committee Fred W. Bahou, Jr. Curtis J. LeMay Chairperson Dracut, Vice-Chair Lowell, Secretary Raymond J. Boutin Paul E. Morin George W. O’Hare Lowell Dracut Lowell Matthew J. Sheehan George A. Tatseos Kempton P. Giggey Dracut Tyngsboro Dunstable Administration Joseph Mastrocola Superintendent-Director Jill Davis Assistant Superintendent/Principal Jeffrey Albert Director-Special Education Tracy Encarnacao Director-Guidance & Counseling Services Michael Barton Director-Curriculum/Instruction & Assessment Directors Stacy Bezanson Director-Cooperative Education/Placement Mark Byrne Director-Plant Services Jamie Costa Senior Assistant Principal Lisa Martinez Director-Technology, Enrollment & Information Kristin Foti Director-Media and Professional Development Christine Messina Director-Practical Nursing & Continuing Ed.
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENT RESUME the Development of Technical And
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 411 471 CE 074 838 TITLE The Development of Technical and Vocational Education in Africa. INSTITUTION United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Dakar (Senegal). Regional Office for Education in Africa. ISBN ISBN-92-9091-054-2 PUB DATE 1996-00-00 NOTE 411p.; Product of the International Project on Technical and Vocational Education (UNEVOC). PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC17 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; *Developing Nations; Economic Development; Education Work Relationship; Educational Cooperation; *Educational Development; Educational Legislation; *Educational Policy; Foreign Countries; Industry; *Role of Education; *School Business Relationship; *Vocational Education IDENTIFIERS *Africa ABSTRACT The 13 chapters in this book depict the challenges facing African nations in their efforts to develop their technical and vocational education (TVE) systems. Chapter 1,"TVE in Africa: A Synthesis of Case Studies" (B. Wanjala Kerre), presents a synthesis of the case studies in which the following major trends taking place within the existing socioeconomic context are discussed: TVE within existing educational structures; cooperation between TVE institutions and enterprises; major challenges facing the nations in their efforts to develop TVE; and the innovative measures undertaken in response to the problems and constraints experienced. The remaining 12 chapters are individual case studies giving a more detailed picture of natural efforts and challenges encountered in the development of TVE. Chapters 2-8 focus on the role of TVE in educational systems: "TVE in Cameroon" (Lucy Mbangwana); "TVE in Congo" (Gilbert Ndimina); "TVE in Ghana"(F. A. Baiden); "TVE in Kenya"(P. 0. Okaka); "TVE in Madagascar" (Victor Monantsoa); "TVE in Nigeria" (Egbe T.
    [Show full text]
  • Course Entry Requirement Statement for 2021 Entry
    Course Entry Requirements Statement for 2021 Entry Course Entry Requirement Statement for 2021 Entry Contents Scope and Purpose ........................................................................................ 3 UK QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 4 GCSEs and equivalent qualifications .................................................................... 4 A’Levels and equivalent qualifications ................................................................. 4 EU AND INTERNATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................. 19 Maritime Courses ........................................................................................ 31 ENGLISH LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A: EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ......................................................... 29 APPENDIX B: ACCEPTABLE ENGLISH LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS FOR STUDENTS REQUIRING A STUDENT ROUTE VISA ................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX C: EUROPEAN SCHOOL LEAVING/MATRICULATION CERTIFICATES EQUIVALENT TO IELTS (ACADEMIC) 6.0 OVERALL ....................................................................... 38 External Relations | Admissions and Enrolment 2 Updated April 2021 Course Entry Requirements Statement for 2021 Entry Scope and Purpose 1. This document is designed for use by Solent University (SU) staff when evaluating applicants for entry
    [Show full text]
  • Specification for the UCAS Data for HESA (*J) 2018/19
    Title: Specification of the UCAS data for HESA Transaction (*J) 2018 Date: 11th October 2018 Version: V1.2 Status: Final Version Security Marking: Private Security Marking: PRIVATE Page 1 of 108 Document Owner: UCAS Last updated: 11/10/2018 1. Overview ............................................................................................................ 3 a. Basis of specification ...................................................................................... 3 b. Providers’ access to transaction ..................................................................... 3 c. Timing ............................................................................................................. 3 d. Structure ......................................................................................................... 3 e. Coverage ........................................................................................................ 3 f. Changes to specification ................................................................................. 4 3. Housekeeping .................................................................................................... 4 a. Document Change Control ............................................................................. 4 4. Changes to data specification for 2018/19 .......................................................... 5 5. Field Specification .............................................................................................. 6 6. UCAS *J file format: UCAS November 2018 ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Qualifications Framework Developments in Europe 2017
    ENENEN NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE 2017 National qualifications framework developments in Europe 2017 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 Please cite this publication as: Cedefop (2018). National qualifications framework developments in Europe 2017. Luxembourg: Publications Office. http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/029873 A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 Copyright © European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), 2018 All rights reserved. PRINT ISBN: 78-92-896-2649-1 doi:10.2801/545730 TI-01-18-117-EN-C PDF ISBN: 978-92-896-2650-7 doi:10.2801/029873 TI-01-18-117-EN-N Designed by Missing Element Prague Printed in the European Union The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) is the European Union’s reference centre for vocational education and training. We provide information on and analyses of vocational education and training systems, policies, research and practice. Cedefop was established in 1975 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75. Europe 123, 570 01 Thessaloniki (Pylea), GREECE PO Box 22427, 551 02 Thessaloniki, GREECE Tel. +30 2310490111, Fax +30 2310490020 E-mail: [email protected] www.cedefop.europa.eu Joachim James Calleja, Director Tatjana Babrauskiene, Chair of the Governing Board Foreword Cedefop has been working on transparency and recognition of qualifications since the 1980s and has helped shape the European qualifications framework (EQF), adopted in 2008 and revised in 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualifications Levels Explained
    QUALIFICATIONS LEVELS. Regulated qualifications in England, Wales & Northern Ireland are in either the Regulated Qualifications Framework (RFQ) Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) The table shows how the most common qualifications compare. The higher the level, the more difficult a qualification is. Qualifications at the same level are a similar level of difficulty, but the size and content of the qualifications can vary. AS levels and A levels are both level 3, but you study AS levels over 1 year and A levels over 2 years. You’ll therefore have a deeper knowledge of a subject if you’ve studied it at A level. LEVEL RFQ EXAMPLES FHEQ EXAMPLES Entry Entry level certificate Entry level Skills for Life Entry level award, certificate and diploma Entry level Functional skills Entry level Foundation Learning 1 GCSE (grades D-G) Key Skills level 1 NVQ level 1 Skills for Life level 1 Foundation diploma BTEC award, certificate and diploma level 1 Foundation Learning level 1 Functional Skills level 1 Cambridge National level 1 2 GCSE (grades A*-C) Key Skills level 2 NVQ level 2 Skills for Life level 2 Higher diploma BTEC award, certificate and diploma level 2 Functional Skills level 2 Cambridge National level 2 Cambridge Technical level 3 AS and A level Advanced Extension Award Cambridge International award International Baccalaureate Key Skills level 3 NVQ level 3 Advanced diploma Progression diploma BTEC award, certificate and diploma level 3 BTEC National Cambridge Technical level 3 4 HNC Certificate of higher education Certificate
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Selective List
    Iowa Department of Administrative Services – Human Resources Enterprise Selective List Introduction to Selectives Selective certification requirements, known simply as “selectives,” are position-specific additional qualification requirements that are based on the demonstrated job-related needs of an individual position being filled. Not every position will require the use of a selective and some positions may require more than one selective. Each selective used must be directly related to the duties of the job. Using a selective narrows the applicant pool by seeking a more specific type of background within the stated minimum qualifications. Selectives do not take the place of the minimum requirements for a vacancy; rather, selectives are necessary, position-specific requirements that an applicant must meet in addition to the minimum qualifications listed for each vacancy. These selective certification requirements are usually based on technical competencies specific to an individual position. Selectives are often expressed as six months of experience or 12 semester hours of education in the selective area, or a combination of both. However, some others may require possession of a specific license, endorsement, or professional certification instead of education or work experience. Revised June 13, 2019 As the chart above depicts, in the case of vacancies that require a selective, an applicant is qualified if the minimum qualifications and the selective certification requirements are met. An applicant is not qualified for the particular position if the minimum qualifications for the job classification are met but the position-specific selective certification requirements are not met. In that instance, the applicant could still be qualified for another vacancy in the same job classification that does not require a selective or that requires another selective for which the applicant meets the criteria.
    [Show full text]