Additional KSAs: Items should present all the KSAs that are necessary to respond successfully that are not a part of the targeted cognition and cannot be safely assumed to be known by test takers. This is a question of how important it that an item only depends on the particular knowledge, skills and abilities (i.e., KSAs) that that item is aligned to—or that particularly make up the standard that the item is aligned to. Those additional KSAs would have to be explained or supplied to test takers (e.g., using footnotes to define more advanced words or supplying a formula sheet). If this principle is less important—or unimportant – items would be free to build upon other grade-level skills, general knowledge that is less than universal and/or KSAs from prior levels that not all test takers at this level necessarily possess.

Alternative Paths: Eliminate—or at least minimize—alternative cognitive paths to a successful response that do not depend appropriately on the targeted cognition. This is a question of how important it is to ensure that test takers can respond successfully to the item only by using the intended cognitive path. If less important—or unimportant—items might be more amenable to more creative problem solving and/or the interesting application of other knowledge, skills or abilities (i.e., KSAs) to compensate for a lack of proficiency with the targetedKSAs.

Bypasses: Items not meant to test some specific prior knowledge—particularly declarative prior knowledge—should not be amenable to bypassing the targeted cognition by relying on that prior knowledge. This is a question of how important it is to ensure that some test takers cannot jump straight to a successful response by using some other particular knowledge they happen to have, rather than the intended cognitive path which uses the knowledge, skills and/or abilities that make up the steps of that path. If less important—or unimportant—items may be acceptable if most test takers (i.e., perhaps a large majority) cannot bypass the KSAs in the intended cognitive path.

Choice Length (MC Items): Keep the length of choices about equal. This is a question of how important it is to ensure that no answer option in a multiple choice item standard out as being notably longer or shorter than any of the others. If less important—or unimportant—items may be acceptable even when answer options vary significantly in length.

Cluing (MC Items): Items should not subtly or obviously signal which answer options are correct and which are incorrect without test takers applying the targeted cognition. This is a question of how important it is to ensure that the wording of individual answer options in multiple choice item items do not make any of them standard out as implausible (i.e., surface plausibility) or far more likely simply because of their wording. If less important—or unimportant—items may be acceptable if savvier test takers are able to pick out the correct answer option through the use of their test taking experience and knowledge.

Cognitive Complexity I (low): Items should not support cognitively less complex paths to a successful response than envisioned by the standard – unless that cognitive simplicity is strictly a function of high proficiency with the targeted standard. This is a question of how important it is to ensure that items do not allow test takers to avoid the cognitive deliberation that reading of the aligned standard appears to require, allowing for test taker with high proficiency with this standard to use that proficiency to take a less deliberative path. If less important—or unimportant—items are may be acceptable even if there are successful response path that require less careful deliberation and care, even for test takers who lack high proficiency with this standard.

Cognitive Complexity II (high): Items meant to assess high proficiency (i.e., high automaticity) with the KSAs in a standard should not support more complex paths to a successful response than envisioned by the standard – unless that cognitive complexity is strictly a function of low proficiency with the targeted standard. This is a question of how important it is to ensure that items aligned to standards that describe the automaticity seen with high levels proficiency are not amenable to more deliberate and thoughtful successful approaches, unless that deliberation focused on this standard is due entirely lack of high proficiency with this standard. If less important—or unimportant—items aligned to standards that require highly proficient application of KSAs are acceptable, even when some test takers can carefully work out a different path to the item that does not require highly proficient use of the those KSAs or even more carefuly and deliberate application of those KSAs.

Conciseness: Avoid window dressing (excessive verbiage). This is a question of how important it is to ensure that items are written using brief—perhaps pithy—language. If less important—or unimportant—items may be acceptable with more verbose language, perhaps even redundant language.

Construct Irrelevant Barriers: Items should not have construct (i.e., the aligned standard) irrelevant barriers to producing a successful response. This is a question of how important it is to ensure that test takers unsuccessful responses to an item are not due to lack of proficiency with KSAs that do not make up the standards, assessment target or other targeted cognition of the item in question. If less important—or unimportant—items are acceptable even if some other lack of proficiencies (e.g., with other grade-level KSAs) could some students to offer unsuccessful responses.

Content Errors: Items should be free of content errors. This is a question of how important it is to ensure that the content-domain information presented in or assumed by an item is accurate. If less important—or unimportant—items are may be acceptable in many cases in which they items presents (or potentially depends on) ideas or claims that some test takers might recognize as false.

Core of the Standard: While a single item need not necessarily assess the entire scope of a standard, it should focus on the meaningful core of the standard – rather than some tangential easier to assess portion of the standard.This is a question of how important it is to ensure that items assess the heart, the meat and/or a very important facet of a standard (e.g., one with broad application, one that is built upon at later levels). If less important—or unimportant—items may be acceptable so long as they are aligned with any portions of the standard in question.

Hello, World!