You can also check this publication. 

Article Design of Valid Summative Assessment Instruments in Formal H...

There is some ambiguity in your question: a summative assessment is a (final) grading assessment and is seldomly used to measure progression. Formative assessments - using the same sort of questions as summative assessments - are used to measure progression, both for teacher and student feedback.

Standardized assessments are a sub-form of assessments which can be found for most knowledge and insight levels, but are hardly good for skills. An example is the question 'describe in your own words' which is not standardized but will give more insight in the students insight in the material.

Student dynamics suggests you are researching skills. Measuring learning gains is very difficult in that area.

Conference Paper Measuring Learning Gains in Project management ICEE 2015

The short answer is no. Standardized tests only measure declarative knowledge and highly-structured problem solving. They omit the things that are critically important such as tacit knowledge and unstructured problem-solving. Standardized tests aren't useless, but are over-emphasized.

Thank you all for your contributions. Don, I really tend to believe the same, standardization may not always capture evolution in the learning process or critical thinking. They may be great as a landmark assessments recording stages in the process, but they cannot capture easily qualitative features related to individual performance indicators.

While I was doing my doctorate, I worked with the Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology (IKIT.) IKIT developed a suite of analytic tools that were built into  Knowledge Forum, our online knowledge building environment. This was some years ago, and the suite of tools has undergone several changes. However, at that time I wrote a manual for the tools, and you might be interested to see what we had developed at that time (about 2004-2005.) I've attached the draft manual.

One of the points to be made here is that once student work is put online, we can use measures that have never been used before, some of which will be better than what we currently are using. I tend to think that we won't really need tests soon (we will probably still use them anyway because they're traditional), because once you can know, up to the second, what the student is working on, how they're doing with it, etc. we will have better information than tests can provide. And this isn't science fiction–we had this back in 2004-2005.

Don, interesting point. This accords with an aspect of my work, where I use truly continuous assessment, constantly giving credit to students AS they work. ACER in Australia is also doing work on aligning, formative and summative assessment throiugh online testing. I wonder how it aligns with what you have done.

Just to clarify, in case it's needed, I had input into the development of the analytic tools, but a number of others were involved as well. It was a team effort.

I need to clear that standardized tests are basically evaluating cognitive domain. Affective and Psycho motor domains are probably untouched or marginally covered. In this scenario, Standardized test are not the appropriate tool to observe the overall performance of the student

Example:  Medical Sciences are the best example. In nursing the intellectual ability and Skill ability to perform the care is evaluated but affective domain is not evaluated in summative assessments, which is equally important .

Also it is usually observed that feedback from formative assessments are not incorporated and hence affects Summative assessment.  

There is a great need to change the methods of assessment and evaluation for overall and holistic development of learners.

Standardized test are tests given in a broad spectrum, it is not necessary based on what has been covered in the curriculum by a teacher. Because of the way standardized tests are structured, it tests only an aspect of assessment areas. Test of knowledge, test of skills, mastery of knowledge and application of skills in performance tasks are not all covered in the structure of standardized tests. The only area that is tested is knowledge of skills, which in my opinion is not a true test of a student’s competence.

With regards to your specific area of interest, “summative assessment and how well individual improvement is reflected.” First and foremost summative assessments are evaluative in nature, summarizing what the student has learned (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006) and a final grade reported, after a series of on-going assessments have been administered to reinforce knowledge and reteach or adjust instruction for understanding.

What you need to record dynamic or static performance of students is formative and interim assessments. Formative assessments are on going assessments such as questions asked during lessons and instructions in class, pop quizzes, quick tests, tickets out of door, oral questions, concept maps, portfolio reviews, peer response groups, observations etc. These assessments or tests are usually not for grading but for instructional purpose, they could be either formal or informal.

Interim assessments are like mid term assessments that provide you with data on the students’ progress. This assessment is like summative assessment the difference being that the grades are not for public consumption but administrative purpose in order to make changes in instruction and instructional materials, unlike summative assessments that is final for placement, parents or the general public to show school rating.

If what you are looking for is to measure on going performance of students to reflect individual improvement then you are better of using multiple formative assessments that test knowledge, skills, mastery of knowledge, portfolios, oral presentations, experiments and application of skills in performance tasks. The collection of data from formative assessments and interim assessments can give you a true reflection of the individual’s improvement based on the data collected you can decide if the students progression is towards the desired learning goals.

Standardized assessment are summative assessments are laden with biases that do not provide a true comprehensive ability of a student as formative assessments do.

Standardised tests are best for doing so. However, when comprehensiveness is needed, other measurement instruments like oral tests, observation, interview, etc which may not be standardised can assist or complement ST.

Hello

If you want please check some publications in my profile.

Kind regards

NP

The answer to this question is dependent upon the degree to which there is alignment across the learning goals and the summative assessment domains. Finding such assessments are often difficult given that standardized assessment items are often written at a more global level of learning than local learning goals.

By their nature, summative assessments are administered at the conclusion of the instructional period, be it an academic year, term, or week. As such, summative assessment results provide insight about student learning after the instructional period has ended.

To determine how well summative assessments reflect individual improvement, it would be necessary to map results across assessment periods in a meaningful way. In order to do this, the assessments would need to be developed along the same measurement scale.

As for a concrete example, some schools utilize computer adaptive assessments that utilize the same scale across multiple assessment periods throughout the school year. In this manner, the standardized assessments can provide information about student progress.

Only if the standardised assessments:

1. Assess generic skills,

2. Assess them accurately,

3. Provide 'waypoints' to indicate progression towards the end point.

4. Provide indicators of 'where to next'