Current concerns in validity theory

Journal of Educational Measurement

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 319-342

  Kane, Michael T ^a  

^a National Conference of Bar Examiners   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035561276     PISSN: 00220655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin Supplement, 51(2), 1-38.
4. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1966). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. Anastasi, A. (1986). Evolving concepts of test validation. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 1-15.
7. Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 9-13). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Elements of generalizability theory, Revised edition. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
9. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
10. Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) (pp. 443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
12. Cronbach, L. J. (1980a). Validity on parole: How can we go straight? New directions for testing and measurement: Measuring achievement over a decade. Proceedings of the 1979 ETS Invitational Conference (pp. 99-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Cronbach, L. J. (1980b). Selection theory for a political world. Public Personnel Management, 9(1), 37-50.
14. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R. E. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy (pp. 147-171). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
16. Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
17. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability of scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
18. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
19. Crooks, T., Kane, M., & Cohen, A. (1996). Threats to the valid use of assessments. Assessment In Education, 3, 265-285.
20. Cureton, E. E. (1950). Validity. In E. F. Lingquist (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
21. Ebel, R. (1961). Must all tests be valid? American Psychologist, 16, 640-647.
22. Embretson (Whitely), S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179-197.
23. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1979). Adoption by four agencies of Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Federal Register, 43, 38290-38315.
24. Feigl, H. (1970). The "orthodox" view of theories: Remarks in defense as well as critique. In M. Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.), Analyses of theories and methods of physics and psychology. Vol. 4, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
25. Grandy, R. E. (1992). Theory of theories: A view from cognitive science. In J. Earman (Ed.), Inference, explanation, and other frustrations: Essay in the philosophy of science (pp. 216-233). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
26. Green, D. R. (1998). Consequential aspects of the validity of achievement tests: A publisher's point of view. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 16-19, 34.
27. Guion, R. (1977). Content validity: The source of my discontent. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 1-10.
28. Guion, R. M. (1980). On trinitarian conceptions of validity. Professional Psychology, 11, 385-398.
29. Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
31. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, M. H. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. National Academy Press, DC.
32. House, E. T. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
33. Kane, M. T. (1982). A sampling model for validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 125-160.
34. Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validation. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
35. Kane, M. T. (1994). Validating interpretive arguments for licensure and certification examinations. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 17, 133-159.
36. Kane, M. T. (1996). The precision of measurements. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(4), 355-379
37. Kane, M. T., Crooks, T. J., & Cohen, A. S. (1999). Validating measures of performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(2), 5-17.
38. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.
40. Lane, S., Parke, C., & Stone, C. (1998). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17,(2), 24-28.
41. Linn, R. L. (1997). Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 14-16.
42. Linn, R. L. (1998). Partitioning responsibility for the evaluation of the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 28-30.
43. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex performance assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 15-21.
44. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, Monograph Supplement, 3, 635-694.
45. Meehl, P. E., & Golden, R. R. (1982). Taxonomic methods. In P. Kendall and J. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology (pp. 127-182). New York: Wiley.
46. Mehrens, W. A. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 16-18.
47. Messick, S. (1975). The standard program: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist, 30, 955-966.
48. Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012-1027.
49. Messick, S. (1981). Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 10, 9-20.
50. Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity. Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer and H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
52. Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequences. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35-44.
53. Moss, P. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229-258.
54. Moss, P. A. (1998). The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 6-12.
55. Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern - wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9-13.
56. Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjecture and refutation: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.
57. Reckase, M. (1998). Consequential validity from the test developer's perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 13-16.
58. Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, 19 (pp. 405-450). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
59. Shepard, L. A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 5-8, 13, 24.
60. Suppe, P. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
61. Taleporos, E. (1998). Consequential validity: A practitioner's perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 20-23, 34.
62. Tenopyr, M. L. (1977). Content-construct confusion. Personnel Psychology, 30, 47-54.
63. Yen, W. M. (1998). Investigating the consequential aspects of validity: Who is responsible and what should they do? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 5.