Final answer:
If traditional measures of reliability are applied to a criterion referenced test, the reliablity estimate will likely be A. spuriously low.
Explanation:
When traditional measures of reliability, designed for norm-referenced tests, are applied to a criterion-referenced test, the reliability estimate is likely to be spuriously low. Criterion-referenced tests focus on assessing a person's mastery of specific skills or knowledge, with an emphasis on individual performance against predetermined criteria. Traditional reliability measures, such as the Pearson correlation coefficient, assume variability in scores across a range, which may not be present in a criterion-referenced setting where individuals are expected to perform at a specific level.
In criterion-referenced testing, where the goal is to determine if a test-taker has attained a certain level of competency, there may be limited variability among scores since all participants are expected to demonstrate mastery. Traditional reliability methods, which rely on score variance, can misinterpret this lack of variability as lower reliability. This misalignment in the nature of the test and the reliability measure can result in a spuriously low reliability estimate. Therefore, it is crucial to use reliability measures tailored to the nature of the assessment to obtain accurate and meaningful estimates of the test's consistency and precision in measuring mastery of specific criteria.