The Historical Development, Significance, and Challenges of Testing and Measurement in Educational Settings: A Literature Review

Testing and measurement have become a vital part of our education system today, as they are important tools for measuring student learning, making education decisions, and holding educational systems accountable. Due to social, political, psychological, and pedagogical forces, educational testing and measurement have evolved over many centuries. This study focused on investigating relevant literature to understand the historical development and evolution of key theories and concepts related to educational testing and measurement, as well as assessing their significance in educational contexts. This study employed a narrative literature review to analyze existing scholarly studies. The review explains how formal testing came into being in ancient China, how oral and written exams came about in medieval Europe, and the scientific measurement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as a result of the progress in psychometrics and intelligence testing. The study has elucidated the contributions of innovators such as Francis Galton, Alfred Binet, and Theodore Simon in the development of modern educational assessments. The development of theories in the field of educational measurement has been explained, and the importance of using testing and measurements in learning and assessing curriculum, educational planning, and decisions has been highlighted. Finally, this paper looks into some of the challenges related to educational testing, like issues of validity, fairness, and culture. It was discovered that, despite being an ongoing process, testing and measurements play a vital role in enhancing the quality of learning and the achievements of students in various settings.

Educational measurement, Educational testing, Assessments, Standardized testing

1. Adom, D., Adu-Mensah, J., & Dake, D. A. (2020). Test, measurement, and evaluation: Understanding and use of the concepts in education. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20457 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bevis, T. B. (2019). The notion of universities. In A world history of higher education exchange: The legacy of American scholarship (pp. 35–53). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12434-2_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (The Binet-Simon Scale). (E. S. Kite, Trans.). Williams & Wilkins Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/11069-000 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bowen, J. (1981). A history of Western education: Volume 1. The ancient world: Orient and Mediterranean, 2000 B.C.–A.D. 1054 (3rd ed.). Methuen. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Boyd, W., & King, E. J. (1975). The history of Western education (10th ed.). Adam and Charles Black. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Generalizability theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(4), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1992.tb00260.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2019). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Burdett, N. (2016). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Testing as a key part of the education ecosystem (RISE Working Paper Series No. 16/010). Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE). https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2016/010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Clauser, B. E., & Margolis, M. J. (2023). Past, present, and future of educational measurement. In R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. Ercikan (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (4th ed., pp. 1–14). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.10001-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Cook, L. L., & Pitoniak, M. J. (Eds.). (2025). Educational measurement (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) PDF [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Educational Testing Service. (2025, February). Why standardized testing matters: A teacher's guide to fair and effective assessments. ETS Global. https://www.etsglobal.org/na/en/blog/news/why-standardized-testing-matters [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Elman, B. A. (2013). Civil examinations and meritocracy in late imperial China. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. European universities emerge. (2021). In EBSCO Research Starters. EBSCO Information Services. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/european-universities-emerge#full-article [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Fancher, R. E., & Rutherford, A. (2017). Pioneers of psychology (5th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Gamisonia, N. (2024). Some issues of education and upbringing in the Middle Ages. International Scientific Journal "The Caucasus and the World", (28), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.52340/isj.2024.28.09 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Gierl, M. J., & Lai, H. (2013). Using automatic item generation to create test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(3), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Goodwin, C. J. (2015). A history of modern psychology (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Han, M., & Yang, X. (2001). Educational assessment in China: Lessons from history and future prospects. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940120033216 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Harrow, M. (2001). The shift from oral to written examination: Cambridge and Oxford, 1700–1900. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940120033243 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Haskins, C. H. (1923). The rise of universities. Henry Holt and Company. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/63574/63574-h/63574-h.htm [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Jd, E. (1977). A comparison of diagnostic and certifying examinations. American Journal of Medical Technology, 43(5), 487–490. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Jonson, J. L., Trantham, P., & Usher-Tate, B. J. (2019). An evaluative framework for reviewing fairness standards and practices in educational tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 38(3), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12259 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2018). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (9th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Kamens, D. H., & McNeely, C. L. (2010). Globalization and the growth of international educational testing and national assessment. Comparative Education Review, 54(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1086/648471 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Kamens, D. H. (2015). A maturing global testing regime meets the world economy: Test scores and economic growth, 1960–2012. Comparative Education Review, 59(3), 420–446. https://doi.org/10.1086/681989 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Kellaghan, T., & Greaney, V. (2019). A brief history of written examinations. In Public examinations examined (pp. 43–74). The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1418-1_ch3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Kruse, O. (2006). The origins of writing in the disciplines: Traditions of seminar writing and the Humboldtian ideal of the research university. Written Communication, 23(3), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289259 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Ku-ming (Kevin) Chang (2021). For the love of the truth: The dissertation as a genre of scholarly publication in early modern Europe. KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge, 5(1), 7–70. https://doi.org/10.1086/713251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Linn, R. L. (2010). Educational measurement: Overview. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 45–49). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00243-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T. (1992). Curriculum evaluation and assessment. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 119–154). Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Madaus, G. F., & O'Dwyer, L. M. (1999). A short history of performance assessment: Lessons learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 688–695. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Miller, G. A. (1962). Psychology: The science of mental life. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Murphy, M. M. (2015). Plato's philosophy of education and the common core debate. Paper presented at the Association for the Development of Philosophy Teaching (ADOPT) Spring Conference, De Paul University, Chicago, IL, United States. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559997.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2014). Educational assessment of students (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Ogunsakin, I. B., & Shogbesan, Y. O. (2018). Item response theory (IRT): A modern statistical theory for solving measurement problem in 21st century. International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 11(3B), 627–635 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Paramole, O. C., & Adeoye, M. A. (2024). Reassessing standardized tests: Evaluating their effectiveness in school performance measurement. Curricula: Journal of Curriculum Development, 3(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.17509/curricula.v3i2.74535 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Pereira, Á. (2023, December). Digital assessment. In Digital Education Outlook. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5dc4b5a-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test? Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Rajuroy, A. (2025). The role of digital tools in implementing continuous formative assessment in mathematics education [Unpublished manuscript]. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam-Rajuroy/publication/392796383_The_Role_of Digital_Tools_in_Implementing_Continuous_Formative_Assessment_in_Mathematics_Education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Rashdall, H. (2010). The universities of Europe in the Middle Ages: Volume 1: Salerno, Bologna, Paris. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511722301 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Romanelli, F., Black, E. P., & Cain, J. (2025). Testing by talking: Rethinking oral examinations. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 89(12), Article 101892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2025.101892 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Rupp, A. A., Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Sivakumar, A., & Thirumoorthy, G. (2019). Measurement and evaluation in education. A.P.H. Publishing Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369479186_Measurement_and_Evaluation_in_Education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Sukhera, J. (2022). Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(4), 414–417. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Supovitz, J. A. (2006). Joan Herman and Edward Haertel (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement [Book review]. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-9005-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Upguage. (n.d.). The future of assessments: From standardized tests to skills-based evaluation. https://www.upguage.com/the_future_of_assessments [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (Eds.). (2010). Elements of adaptive testing. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Von Davier, M., Zhu, M., & Kyllonen, P. C. (Eds.). (2019). Innovative assessment of collaboration. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Walker, M.E., Olivera-Aguilar, M., Lehman, B., Laitusis, C., Guzman-Orth, D. and Gholson, M. (2023), Culturally Responsive Assessment: Provisional Principles. ETS Research Report Series, 2023: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12374 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Wang, K. (n.d.). Monasteries and Universities in Middle Age. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-5218.2007.06.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Wang, N., Gao, X., Yan, L., Peng, C., Yu, Z., & Ren, X. (2026). Integrating AI-assisted formative evaluation into a full course: A case study in university-level programming education. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-026-13933-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Weiss, D. J. (2011). Better data from better measurements using computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 2(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2458/v2i1.12366 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Welsh, M. E., Eastwood, M., & D'Agostino, J. V. (2014). Conceptualizing teaching to the test under standards-based reform. Applied Measurement in Education, 27(2), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2014.880439 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Wilbrink, B. (1997). Assessment in historical perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(96)00024-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Wilson, M. (2023). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003286929 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Wise, L. L., & Rutstein, D. (2024). Educational Measurement: Models, Methods, and Theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12642 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Yousaf, M., Umber, S., & Imran, M. (2025). A comparative study of ancient and contemporary educational philosophies. Social Sciences & Humanity Research Review, 3(2), Article 016. https://doi.org/10.63468/sshrr.016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Zanon, C., Hutz, C., Yoo, H., & Hambleton, R. K. (2016). An application of item response theory to psychological test development. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 29, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0040-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Zhao, J. (2023). The influence of the imperial examination system reform in the Northern Song Dynasty on the scholars. SHS Web of Conferences, 179, Article 01012. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202317901012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Relationship of Technology Acceptance and Behavioural Intention Toward AI-Based Educational Assessment among Lecturers in Saudi Arabia
• Development and Validation of an Extended UTAUT-Based Instrument for Measuring Lecturers' Acceptance and Behavioral Intention Toward AI-Based Educational Assessment in Saudi Higher Education
• Reconceptualising Learning Approach Adoption through Assessment Perceptions: Evidence from Ghanaian Colleges of Education
• Authentic Assessment in Primary Music Education: A Comparative Analysis of Seven Curriculum Systems and Implications for Malaysia Joshua Raj Pitchemuthu, Mohd Hassan Abdullah