Evaluation of consequences of test use invalidity theory;La evaluación de las consecuencias del uso de los tests en la teoría de la validez

Psicothema

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 307-312

  Padilla, José Luis ^a   Gómez, Juana ^b   Hidalgo, Maria Dolores ^c   Muñiz, José ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OVIEDO   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); GUIDELINES; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 33748803635     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. American Psychological Association (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. American Educational Research Association y National Council on Measurement in Education (1955). Technical recommendations for achievement tests. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
3. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association y National Council on Measurement in Education (1966). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC:
4. American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association y National Council on Measurement in Education (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC:
5. American Psychological Association. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association y National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association y National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing, Washinton, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J. y J. van Heerden (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1.061-1.071.
8. Casillas, A. y Robbins, S.B. (2005). Test adaptation and cross-cultural assessment from a business perspective: issues and recommendations. International Journal of Testing, 5, 5-21.
9. Cole, N.S. y Zieky, M.J. (2001). The new faces of fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 369-382.
10. Crocker, L. (1997). Editorial: the great validity debate. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 4.
11. Crocker, L. (2003). Teaching for the test: validity, fairness and moral action. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 5-11.
12. nd ed., pp. 443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
13. Ebel, R.L. (1961). Must all test be valid? American Psychologist, 16, 640-647.
14. Elosua, P. (2003). Sobre la validez de los tests. Psicothema, 15, 315-321.
15. Elosua, P. y López-Jáuregui, A. (2005). Clases latentes y funcionamiento diferencial del ftem. Psicothema, 17, 516-521.
16. Górnez, J. y Padilla, J.L. (2004). The evaluation of consequences in standard-based test scores interpretations. Measurement, 2, 104-108.
17. Green, D.R. (1998). Consequential aspects of the validity of achievement tests: a publisher's point of view, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 16-20.
18. Guion, R.M. (1974). Open a new window: validities and values in psychological measurement. American Psychologist, 29, 287-296.
19. Hambleton, R.K., Merenda, P.P. y Spieloerger, C.D. (eds.) (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment, London: LEA.
20. Hambleton, R.K. y Pitoniak, M.J. (2002). Testing and measurement. En J. Wixted (ed.): Methodology in experimental psychology (pp. 517-562). En H. Pashler (ed.): Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology (third edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21. Hidalgo, M.D., Górnez, J. y Padilla, J.L. (2005). Regresión logística: alternativas de análisis en la detección del funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems. Psicothema, 17, 509-515.
22. Hogan, T.P. y Agnello, J. (2004). An empirical study of reporting practices concerning measurement validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 802-812.
23. Kane, M. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 772, 527-535.
24. Kane, M. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342.
25. Linn, R. (1997). Evaluating the validity of assessments: the consequences of use. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 14-16.
26. Linn, R. (2001). Constructs and values in standards-based assessment. En H.I. Braun, D.N. Jakson y D.Wiley (eds.): The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 231-254). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
27. Mehrens, W. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 16-19.
28. Messick, S. (1975). The standard problem: meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist, 30, 955-966.
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 (pp. 13-103). New York: MacMillan.
31. Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14, 5-8.
32. Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: a matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35-44.
33. Moss, P.A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62, 229-258.
34. Muñiz, J. (2003). La validación de los tests. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 5, 119-139.
35. Popham, W. (1997). Consequential validity: right concern-wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6, 9-14.
36. Shepard, L.A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.
37. Shepard, L.A. (1997). Evaluating centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6, 71-86.
38. Willingham, W.W. (2001). Seeking fair alternatives in construct design. En H.I. Braun, D.N. Jakson y D. Wiley (eds.): The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 193-206). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.