This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lissitz, R. W. Articles by Samuelsen, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Suggested Change in Terminology and Emphasis Regarding Validity and Education

Professor of education and director of the Maryland Assessment Research Center for Education Success, Department of Measurement, Statistics, and Evaluation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742; rlissitz{at}umd.edu. His research focuses on psychometrics, applied statistics, value-added modeling, test linking, and standard setting.

Karen Samuelsen

Assistant professor in the Research, Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics Program, Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, University of Georgia, 325S Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30606; ksam{at}uga.edu. Her research focuses on mixture models, especially as they pertain to the measurement of differential item function

This article raises a number of questions about the current unified theory of test validity that has construct validity at its center. The authors suggest a different way of conceptualizing the problem of establishing validity by considering whether the focus of the investigation of a test is internal to the test itself or focuses on constructs and relationships that are external to the test. They also consider whether the perspective on the test examination is theoretical or practical. The resulting taxonomy, encompassing both investigative focus and perspective, serves to organize a reconceptualization of the field of validity studies. The authors argue that this approach, together with changes in the rest of the terminology regarding validity, leads to a more understandable and usable model.

Key Words: assessment design • construct validity • content validity • test development

Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. 8, 437-448 (2007)
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X07311286


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. R. Brandon and J. M. Singh The Strength of the Methodological Warrants for the Findings of Research on Program Evaluation Use American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2009; 30(2): 123 - 157. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. T. Kane Terminology, Emphasis, and Utility in Validation Educational Researcher, March 1, 2008; 37(2): 76 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. Embretson Construct Validity: A Universal Validity System or Just Another Test Evaluation Procedure? Educational Researcher, November 1, 2007; 36(8): 449 - 455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Gorin Reconsidering Issues in Validity Theory Educational Researcher, November 1, 2007; 36(8): 456 - 462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Mislevy Validity by Design Educational Researcher, November 1, 2007; 36(8): 463 - 469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Moss Reconstructing Validity Educational Researcher, November 1, 2007; 36(8): 470 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. G. Sireci On Validity Theory and Test Validation Educational Researcher, November 1, 2007; 36(8): 477 - 481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. W. Lissitz and K. Samuelsen Further Clarification Regarding Validity and Education Educational Researcher, November 1, 2007; 36(8): 482 - 484. [Full Text] [PDF]