The criterion based standards uses one measurement of competence and is thus subjective to the sets from which the sets are drawn from. The results are general and are a reflection of competences in fragments. These fragments cannot indicate the actual competence of the student nor indicate the proficiency in one particular area. The problems in actual world may entirely differ from what has been learnt. The whole testing may therefore be erroneous. The human performance cannot authentically be represented in such a form.
The multiple criterion based assessment gives a better form of testing. But, it cannot be universally applicable. There are many occasions that require single indicators. For example, the winning of a team or an increase in attendance of a student, or the wining of a photo in a contest may not require any other form of consideration. Therefore uses of the multiple criteria may give erroneous research.
The use of human judgments though, it is the easiest to apply is subjective to the individual observation. For example, the observers of a team playing may have completely different opinions of a particular player depending on what perspective they use. The subjectivity of human judgment calls for the need to combine it with other methods so competence testing. This makes it a complicated method of assessment that takes long time to achieve. The subjectivity may not necessarily agree with the other tests.
In general, convectional tests in school tend to prematurely terminate the progress of students to higher levels of education. Many students finish high schools and do not proceed to institutions of higher learning since they did not perform well courtesy of conventional methods of assessment. This can also explain the reason why not all those who proceed to the higher levels eventually succeed since the conventional methods of assessment do not give the best competence levels of the students and not those who do not proceed to higher levels fail. The conventional methods of assessment lack general baseline standards of quality that can be used to determine authentic outcomes that are reliable.
The methods are similar in that they all determine the levels of learner’s performance paying attention to similar aspects as comprehension, transferability, and application of the learnt knowledge. In all, the learners are subjective to some sort of evaluation from which inferences are made. All of them are applicable to different levels of education and age. There are also fundamental differences in them. The authentic tends to concentrate on the relationship between class work and applicability of the learnt content. In a particular scenario, the authenticity of achievement shall be confirmed by performance in the field or after finishing school in practical areas. The productive measures achievement on whether the learnt skills are productive as intended either practically or theoretically. This may not include consideration of the other tests like criterion based but tend to focus on the multiple criterions. Educative consider mostly retention of the learned information and been able to retain and reproduce it either in practice or theory.
Fred M. Newman, Antony S. Bryk and Jenny K. Nagaoka (2001). Authentic Intellectual Work
and Standardized Tests: Conflict or coexistence? Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Newman, F. M. & Archibald, D. A. (1992) The Nature of Authentic Academic Achievement. In
Berlak, H. et al. Toward a New Science of Educational Testing and Assessment. pages 71-83.SUNY Press: Albany
Wiggins, Grant; McTighe, Jay, Mar 15, 2005, Understanding by Design, Expanded 2nd Edition
ASCD, Alexandria, ISBN: 9781416602255