About test validity;Sobre la validez de los tests

Psicothema

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 315-321

  Oliden, Paula Elosua ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23844541252     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, y National Council on Measurement in Education. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological test and diagnostic techniques. Psychological bulletin, 51(2, Pt.2).
2. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, y National Council on Measurement in Education (1966, 1974, 1985, 1999). Standards for educational and psychological test y manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Bejar, I.I. (1990) A generative analysis of a three-dimensional spatial task. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 237-245.
4. Bennet, R.E. (1999) Using new technology to improve assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 18(3), 5-12.
5. Bennet, R.E. y Béjar, I.I. (1999) Validity and automated scoring: It's not only the scoring. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 17, 9-17.
6. Brennan, R.L. (2000). Performance assessments from the perspective of generalizability theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(4), 339-353.
7. Browne, M.VV. (1984). The descomposition of multirait-multimethod matrices. British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 37, 1-21.
8. Camilli, G. y Shepard, L.A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
9. Campbell, D.T. y Fiske, A.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multirait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
10. Clauser, B.E. (2000). Recurrent Issues and Recent Advances in Scoring Performance Asessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(4), 310-324.
11. a ed.). New York: Harper.
12. Elosua, P. y López, A. (2002) Indicadores de dimensionalidad para ítems binarios. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento 4(1), 121-137.
13. Elosua, P., López, A. y Torres, E. (2000). Desarrollos didácticos y funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems. Problemas inherentes a toda investigación empírica sobre sesgo. Psicothema, 12(2), 198-202.
14. Embretson, S.E. (1983). Construct validity: construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93(1), 179-197.
15. Embretson, S.E. (1997). Multicomponent response models. En WJ.v.Linden y R.K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 305-321). New York: Springer.
16. Guilford, J.P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427-439.
17. Hambleton, R.K. (1980). Test score validity and standard-setting methods. En R. A. Berk (Ed.), Criterion-referenced measurement: the state of the art (pp. 80-123). Baltimore: Johns Hiokins University Press.
18. Hambleton, R.K., Clauser, B.E., Mazor, M. y Jones, R. (1993). Advances in the detection of differentially functioning test items. European journal of psychological assessment, 9(1), 1-18.
19. Hambleton, R.K. y Rovinelli, R J. (1986). Assessing the dimensionality of a set of test items. Applied psychological measurement, 10, 287-302.
20. Hattie, J. (1984). An empirical study of various indices for determining unidimensionality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 49-78.
21. Holland, P.W. y Wainer, H. (Eds.) (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Hunter, J.E. y Schmidt, F.L. (1991). Meta-analysis. En R.K. Hambleton y J.N. Zaal (Eds.), Advances in Educational and Psychological Testing: Theory and Applicaations (pp. 157-184). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
23. Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
24. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports (Monograph Supp. 9), 3, 635-694.
25. Marsh, H.W. (1988). Multirait-multimethod analysis. En J.P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational Research, methodology and measurement. An international Handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
26. Martínez Arias, R. (1995). Psicometría: Teoría de los tests psicológicos y educativos. Madrid: Síntesis, S.A.
27. McDonald, R.P. (1999). Test theory. A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Meherens, W.A. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 16-19.
29. Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1.012-1.027.
30. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. En R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement >(Third Edition ed., pp. 13-104). New York: American Council on Education; Macmillan Publishing Company.
31. a ed.). Madrid: Pirámide, S.A.
32. Parshall, C.G., Davey, T. y Pashley, PJ. (2000) Innovative item types for computerized testing. En van der Linden y C.A.W. Glas (Eds). Computerized adaptive testing. Theory and Practice. (pp. 129-148) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33. Paz, M.D. (1996). Validez. En J.Muñiz (Ed.) Psicometría (pp.49-103). Madrid. Universitas
34. Popham, W. J. (1997). Consecuential validity: Right concern-wrong concept. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 16, 9-13.
35. Prieto, G. y Delgado, A.R. (1999). Medición cognitiva de las aptitudes. En J. Olea, V. Ponsoda y G. Prieto (Eds.), Tests informatizados. Fundamentos y aplicaciones (pp. 207-226). Madrid: Pirámide.
36. Santisteban, C. (1990). Psicometría. Teoría y práctica en la construcción de tests. Madrid: Ediciones Norma, S.A.
37. Sireci, S.G. (1998). Gathering and analyzing content validity data. Educational Assessment, 5(4), 299-321.
38. Snow, R.E. y Lohman, D.F. (1993). Cogntitive Psychology, New Test Design and new test theory: An introduction. En N. Frederiksen, R.J. Misley e I.I. Béjar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 1-18). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39. Stout, W. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensional assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293-326.
40. Zhang, J. y Stout, W. (1999). The theoretical detect index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika, 64(2), 213-249.
41. Zwick, R. (2000). The assessment of differential item functioning in computer adaptive tests. En W. van der Linden y C.A. W. Glas (Eds.), Computerized Adaptive Testing. Theory and Practice (pp. 221-243). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.