A Scanlan Center for School Mental Health-sponsored workshop (offered both in-person and online) designed for research stakeholders, including, affiliated faculty, education professionals, AEA employees, DEO employees, as well as school mental health student and faculty researchers across the state of Iowa.

Presenter: Ariel M. Aloe
Description:
Reading every single source of scientific evidence (e.g., journal articles) about a specific research topic is a challenging task given the vast amount of potential evidence available. Moreover, in many fields, it has become customary to rely on research synthesis and/or meta-analysis when making decisions for policy and/or practice. Thus, researchers, stakeholders, and decision makers are often encouraged to rely on reviews or syntheses of the available evidence. Moreover, evidence synthesis methodology (e.g., systematic reviews, meta-analyses) have become more diverse and sophisticated. As also true for the primary studies they summarize, not all evidence syntheses are created equal, and determining which syntheses are of high enough quality on which to base policy decisions requires an understanding of the methodology used for each.

The focus of this workshop is on how to evaluate different forms of evidence synthesis. Specifically, I will discuss what components should be presented in different forms of evidence synthesis in order to ensure high-quality results. By the workshop end, participants will be able to identify key components, biases, and levels of confidence about results reported in: systematic reviews, meta-analysis, meta-regression, network meta-analysis, individual participant data meta-analysis, scoping review, and evidence gap maps. The workshop will build on examples brought by the participants from their own research areas and may include research topics within medicine, epidemiology, public policy, education, criminology, sociology, psychology, nursing, and ecology.

• In-Person: 204 South Lindquist Center, 240 South Madison Street, Iowa City, IA 52242
• Online: Zoom (link to be provided following registration)

Presenter: Lesa Hoffman
Description:
This workshop will address quantitative research using intensive repeated measures (longitudinal) data, such as collected in multiple-baseline intervention designs (e.g., multiple observations for each subject during baseline, intervention, and follow-up), or collected in ecological momentary assessment designs (e.g., over multiple days per respondent, and potentially multiple observations per day). This four day-long, half-day workshop will have a conceptual, applied focus, largely concentrating on the correspondence between research questions, study designs, and how different statistical models (e.g., multilevel/mixed-effects/hierarchical linear models; “dynamic” structural equation models) can be used to optimally provide the answers needed. The workshop is designed for anyone who wishes to learn more about planning and executing longitudinal research (students, postdocs, faculty, and staff). Previous background in general linear models (e.g., regression and analysis of variance) will be helpful, as an important topic to be covered is how models for intensive repeated measures data necessarily differ from general linear models. Resources will also be provided for how one might estimate the models for the examples described, such as within SPSS, SAS, Stata, R, and Mplus analysis software.

Locations:

• In-Person: N166 (North) Lindquist Center, 240 South Madison Street, Iowa City, IA 52242
• Online: Zoom (link to be provided following registration)

This workshop will provide in-depth instruction in the theory and practice of equating, as in Kolen and Brennan (2014), Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (3^rd ed.) published by Springer. Participants will also gain experience with computer programs for equating. The workshop is suitable for advanced graduate students in measurement; faculty who plan to teach equating; employees of state departments of education, testing companies, licensure, and certification organizations; and others who want relatively in-depth training in equating. It is assumed that participants have knowledge at the level of intermediate statistics (e.g., regression) and intermediate measurement (e.g., basics of IRT).

Who Should Attend

This workshop is suitable for:

• Advanced graduate students in measurement
• Faculty who plan to teach equating
• Employees of state departments of education, testing companies, licensure and certification organizations
• Others who want a relatively in-depth training on equating

It is assumed that participants have intermediate knowledge of classical test theory and intermediate statistics. IRT knowledge is helpful, but not required.

What past participants are saying about the CASMA Equating Workshop

• The workshop provides a very comprehensive overview of the most common equating methods and practice of software with a good selection of details.
• This workshop was of exceptional value. The concepts, methods, and software are readily able to be applied in my work tasks. I went from a few vague notions to a relatively good understanding of concepts in just one week.
• The workshop was superb! It was an honor to be able to study under such an elite panel of experts. The organization, planning and execution of all aspects of the workshop were outstanding!
• The instructors were exceptional and very approachable. This is much appreciated with content that is so dense.
• Very useful as an overview of a variety of methods that I didn’t know about before. Also has made me aware of certain practical aspects that can apply to context other than my own organization.
• Extremely valuable, even with my extensive number of years’ experience conducting equating.
• This workshop has helped me grow as a psychometrician. The examples described really helped me understand the issues and mechanics in equating.
• I really enjoyed the combination of theoretical and applied concepts.
• Excellent workshop, provided wealth of information on critical issues for testing in education. Materials were extremely helpful in illustrating concepts.