Validity on trial: Psychometric and legal conceptualizations of validity

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 27-34

  Sireci, Stephen G ^a   Parker, Polly ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

Construct validity; Content validity; Due process; Standard setting; Testing consequences

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750967069     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00065.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. American Psychological Association, Committee on Test Standards (1952). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques: A preliminary proposal. American Psychologist, 7, 461-465.
3. American Psychological Association (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51(2, supplement).
4. American Psychological Association (1966). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: Author.
5. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Ass'n. of Mexican-American Educators v. California, 836 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D.Calif. 1993).
8. Bhola, D., Impara, J., & Buckendahl, C. (2003). Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 21-29.
9. Buckendahl, C., & Hunt, R. (2005). Whose rules? The relation between the "rules" and "law" of testing. In R. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 147-158). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
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. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
13. Cureton, E. E. (1951). Validity. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (1st ed., pp. 621-694). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
14. th Cir. 1984).
15. Dolan, W. S. (1998). Chalk talk: The twenty thousand dollar question - what is a preposition? Teacher competency testing and the increasing risk of failure. Journal of Law and Education, 27, 667-674.
16. Faggen, J. (1987). Golden rule revisited: Introduction. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6(2), 5-8.
17. GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency, et al., No. SA97-CA-1278, 1999, U.S. District Court, W.D. of Texas, San Antonio, TX.
18. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 310-11 (1977).
19. Hearn V City of Jackson, 340 F. Supp. 2d 728, S. D. Miss (2003).
20. Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 527-535.
21. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694 (Monograph Supplement 9).
22. Mehrens, W. A. (2000). Defending a state graduation test: GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency. Measurement perspectives from an external evaluator. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 387-401.
23. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
24. Phillips, S. E. (1991a). Diploma sanction tests revisited: New problems from old solutions. Journal of Law and Education, 20(2), 175-199.
25. Phillips, S. E. (1991b). Extending teacher licensure testing: Have the courts applied the wrong validity standard? Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 8, 513-550.
26. Phillips, S. E. (2000). GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency. Psychometric evidence. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 343-385.
27. Schmidt, F. L. (1988). Validity generalization and the future of criterion-related validity. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 173-189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Shepard, L. A. ( 1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.
29. Shepard, L. A. (1996). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 5-24.
30. Shoben, E. (1978). Differential pass-fail rates in employment testing: Statistical proof under Title VII. Harvard Law Review, 91, 793-813.
31. Sireci, S. G. (1998a). Gathering and analyzing content validity data. Educational Assessment, 5, 299-321.
32. Sireci, S. G. (1998b). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83-117.
33. Sireci, S. G., & Green, P. C. (2000). Legal and psychometric criteria for evaluating teacher certification tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 19(1), 22-31, 34.
34. Smisko, A., Twing, J. S., & Denny, P. (2000). The Texas model for content and curricular validity. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 333-342.
35. Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychametrika, 52, 589-617.
36. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d (1999).
37. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1999).
38. United States Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (1978). United States Equal Opportunity employment Commission guidelines on employment testing procedures. Washington, DC: Author.
39. WEX (2006). Equal protection. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection on July 2, 2006.
40. Williams v. Ford Motor Company: 187 F. 3d 533: C.A. 6 Mich (1999).