IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Measuring Progress with Tests of Learning: Pros and Cons for "Cash on Delivery Aid" in Education

  • Marlaine Lockheed


This paper reviews, in non-technical terms, the case for and against using tests of learning for measuring annual educational progress within programs of “progressbased aid.” It addresses three questions about testing in developing countries. One, are valid and reliable measures of student learning currently available in developing countries? Two, are existing tests used in developing countries capable of registering the changes in educational results called for under “progress-based aid”? And three, do developing countries have the technical and administrative capacity to undertake annual assessments of learning? The paper includes a brief description of existing national, regional and international testing activities in developing and transition countries, a discussion of some technical topics related to testing and assessment, and various options for using learning assessments in the context of “progress-based aid.”

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Center for Global Development in its series Working Papers with number 147.

in new window

Length: 29 pages
Date of creation: Jun 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cgd:wpaper:147
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cgd:wpaper:147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David Roodman)

The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask David Roodman to update the entry or send us the correct address

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.