The Most Appropriate Scores for Measuring Educational Development in the Elementary Schools: GE's

none - invited address, abridged, no data

US elementary schooling and the batteries used in it

An abridged AERA invited address (Montreal, 1983), not a study. The independence flag is load-bearing rather than decorative: Hoover is a co-author of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, which report grade-equivalent scores, so this is the defence of a score type by someone with a stake in the instrument that produces it. That does not make the argument wrong - the measurement case for GEs as a developmental scale is real - but the archive records who is arguing.

The counterweight this topic needs, so the anti-GE position is not recorded unopposed. Hoover argues that grade equivalents are the most appropriate score for measuring educational DEVELOPMENT in the elementary years, because they are on a developmental scale that tracks growth across grades, whereas within-grade standard scores and percentiles are re-normed each year and therefore cannot express growth at all. The archive did not obtain the full argument (no deposited abstract; paywalled) and does not paraphrase beyond the thesis stated in the title and the surrounding debate. The disagreement with the anti-GE position is narrower than it looks: both sides agree GEs are a growth scale and not a placement scale.

Not applicable - a measurement-theory argument, no estimates.

Not an empirical finding. The debate it belongs to (Educational Measurement - Issues and Practice, mid-1980s) was never resolved empirically and largely ended in the publishers' own guidance advising against diagnostic use.