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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kane, M. T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Terminology, Emphasis, and Utility in Validation

MICHAEL T. KANE is director of research at the National Conference of Bar Examiners, 302 South Bedford Street, Madison, WI 53703-3622; mkane{at}ncbex.org. His research focuses on validity, particularly the validity of high-stakes achievement tests

Lissitz and Samuelsen (2007) have proposed an operational definition of validity that shifts many of the questions traditionally considered under validity to a separate category associated with the utility of test use. Operational definitions support inferences about how well people perform some kind of task or how they respond to some kind of stimulus. Such interpretations can be useful for some purposes, but they do not support any richer interpretations of scores. The author argues that validation should involve an evaluation of the proposed interpretations and uses of test scores. Test developers may choose to adopt a narrow operational interpretation of test scores, but if they do so, they should label the test accordingly.

Key Words: content validity • test consequences • utility of test scores • validity

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