Jump to content

Test validity: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Chobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
167,695 edits
m robot Modifying: ko:검사 타당도
"comprised of"
Line 9: Line 9:
Although psychologists and educators were aware of several facets of validity before World War II, their methods for establishing validity were commonly restricted to correlations of test scores with some known criterion <ref name="angoff1988">Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), ''Test Validity'' (pp. 19-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. </ref>. Under the direction of [[Lee Cronbach]], the 1954 ''Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques''<ref name="1954recommendations" /> attempted to clarify and broaden the scope of validity by dividing it into four parts: (a) [[concurrent validity]], (b) [[predictive validity]], (c) [[content validity]], and (d) [[construct validity]]. Cronbach and Meehl’s subsequent publication<ref name="cronbachmeehl1955">Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. ''Psychological Bulletin, 52'', 281-302.</ref> grouped predictive and concurrent validity into a "criterion-orientation", which eventually became [[criterion validity]].
Although psychologists and educators were aware of several facets of validity before World War II, their methods for establishing validity were commonly restricted to correlations of test scores with some known criterion <ref name="angoff1988">Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), ''Test Validity'' (pp. 19-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. </ref>. Under the direction of [[Lee Cronbach]], the 1954 ''Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques''<ref name="1954recommendations" /> attempted to clarify and broaden the scope of validity by dividing it into four parts: (a) [[concurrent validity]], (b) [[predictive validity]], (c) [[content validity]], and (d) [[construct validity]]. Cronbach and Meehl’s subsequent publication<ref name="cronbachmeehl1955">Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. ''Psychological Bulletin, 52'', 281-302.</ref> grouped predictive and concurrent validity into a "criterion-orientation", which eventually became [[criterion validity]].


Over the next four decades, many theorists, including Cronbach himself<ref>Cronbach, L. J. (1969). Validation of educational measures. ''Proceedings of the 1969 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton'', NJ: Educational Testing Service, 35-52.</ref>, voiced their dissatisfaction with this three-in-one model of validity<ref>Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. ''Psychological Reports, 3'', 634-694.</ref><ref>Tenopyr, M. L. (1977). Content-construct confusion. ''Personnel Psychology, 30'', 47-54.</ref><ref>Guion, R. M. (1977). Content validity–The source of my discontent. ''Applied Psychological Measurement, 1'', 1-10.</ref>. Their arguments culminated in [[Samuel_Messick|Samuel Messick’s]] 1995 article that described validity as a single construct comprised of six "aspects"<ref name="messick1995" />. In his view, various inferences made from test scores may require different types of evidence, but not different validities.
Over the next four decades, many theorists, including Cronbach himself<ref>Cronbach, L. J. (1969). Validation of educational measures. ''Proceedings of the 1969 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton'', NJ: Educational Testing Service, 35-52.</ref>, voiced their dissatisfaction with this three-in-one model of validity<ref>Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. ''Psychological Reports, 3'', 634-694.</ref><ref>Tenopyr, M. L. (1977). Content-construct confusion. ''Personnel Psychology, 30'', 47-54.</ref><ref>Guion, R. M. (1977). Content validity–The source of my discontent. ''Applied Psychological Measurement, 1'', 1-10.</ref>. Their arguments culminated in [[Samuel_Messick|Samuel Messick’s]] 1995 article that described validity as a single construct composed of six "aspects"<ref name="messick1995" />. In his view, various inferences made from test scores may require different types of evidence, but not different validities.


The 1999 ''Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing''<ref name="1999standards" /> largely codified Messick’s model. They describe five types of validity-supporting evidence that incorporate each of Messick’s aspects, and make no mention of the classical models’ content, criterion, and construct validities.
The 1999 ''Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing''<ref name="1999standards" /> largely codified Messick’s model. They describe five types of validity-supporting evidence that incorporate each of Messick’s aspects, and make no mention of the classical models’ content, criterion, and construct validities.

Revision as of 06:38, 31 August 2009

In psychological and educational testing, “Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests” [1]. Although classical models divided the concept into various "validities," such as content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity[2], the modern view is that validity is a single unitary construct[3].

Introduction

Validity is the most important issue in psychological and educational testing[4] because it concerns the meaning placed on test results[3]. Though many textbooks present validity as a static construct[5], various models of validity have evolved since the first published recommendations for constructing psychological and education tests[6]. These models can be categorized into two primary groups: classical models, which include several types of validity, and modern models, which present validity as a single construct. The modern models reorganize classical "validities" into either "aspects" of validity[3] or types of validity-supporting evidence[1]

Historical background

Although psychologists and educators were aware of several facets of validity before World War II, their methods for establishing validity were commonly restricted to correlations of test scores with some known criterion [7]. Under the direction of Lee Cronbach, the 1954 Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques[6] attempted to clarify and broaden the scope of validity by dividing it into four parts: (a) concurrent validity, (b) predictive validity, (c) content validity, and (d) construct validity. Cronbach and Meehl’s subsequent publication[8] grouped predictive and concurrent validity into a "criterion-orientation", which eventually became criterion validity.

Over the next four decades, many theorists, including Cronbach himself[9], voiced their dissatisfaction with this three-in-one model of validity[10][11][12]. Their arguments culminated in Samuel Messick’s 1995 article that described validity as a single construct composed of six "aspects"[3]. In his view, various inferences made from test scores may require different types of evidence, but not different validities.

The 1999 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing[1] largely codified Messick’s model. They describe five types of validity-supporting evidence that incorporate each of Messick’s aspects, and make no mention of the classical models’ content, criterion, and construct validities.

References

  1. ^ a b c American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  2. ^ Guion, R. M. (1980). On trinitarian doctrines of validity. Professional Psychology, 11, 385-398.
  3. ^ a b c d Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
  4. ^ Popham, W. J. (2008). All About Assessment / A Misunderstood Grail. Educational Leadership, 66(1), 82-83.
  5. ^ See the otherwise excellent text: Nitko, J.J., Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Educational assessment of students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
  6. ^ a b American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Washington, DC: The Association.
  7. ^ Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (pp. 19-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  8. ^ Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
  9. ^ Cronbach, L. J. (1969). Validation of educational measures. Proceedings of the 1969 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 35-52.
  10. ^ Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 634-694.
  11. ^ Tenopyr, M. L. (1977). Content-construct confusion. Personnel Psychology, 30, 47-54.
  12. ^ Guion, R. M. (1977). Content validity–The source of my discontent. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 1-10.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Test_validity&oldid=311032834"