The Dutch review process for evaluating the quality of psychological tests: History, procedure, and results

International Journal of Testing

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 295-317

  Evers, Arne ^a   Sijtsma, Klaas ^b   Lucassen, Wouter ^c   Meijer, Rob R ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c Meurs HRM ^*  (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Dutch committee on testing; Test documentation; Test quality; Test review system

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955769086     PISSN: 15305058     EISSN: 15327574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15305058.2010.518325     Document Type: Article

References (44)

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. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Bartram, D. (1996). Test qualifications and test use in the UK: The competence approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 62-71.
4. Bartram, D., Lindley, P. A., & Foster, J. M. (1990). A review of psychometric tests for assessment in vocational training. Sheffield, UK: The Training Agency.
5. Bechger, T., Hemker, B., & Maris, G. (2009). Over het gebruik van continue normering [On the use of continuous norming]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
6. Born, M. (2009,July). An ISO standard for assessment in work and organizational settings. In D. Bartram (Chair), International guidelines and standards relating to tests and testing. Symposium conducted at The 11th European Congress of Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
7. Buros, O. K. (1938). The 1938 Mental Measurements Yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8. Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
9. Cronbach, L.J.(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16, 297-334.
10. Drenth, P. J. D., & Sijtsma, K. (2006). Testtheorie. Inleiding in de theorie van de psychologische test en zijn toepassingen (4e herziene druk) [Test theory. Introduction in the theory and application of psychological tests (4th revised ed.)]. Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
11. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Evers, A. (2001a). Improving test quality in the Netherlands: Results of 18 years of test ratings. International Journal of Testing, 1, 137-153.
13. Evers, A. (2001b). The revised Dutch rating system for test quality. International Journal of Testing, 1, 155-182.
14. Evers, A., Braak, M., Frima, R., & van Vliet-Mulder, J. C. (2009). Documentatie van Tests en Testre-search in Nederland [Documentation of Tests and Testresearch in The Netherlands]. Amsterdam: Boom test uitgevers.
15. Evers, A., Lucassen, W., Meijer, R., & Sijtsma, K. (2009). COTAN Beoordelingssysteem voor de Kwaliteit van Tests (geheel herziene versie) [COTAN Rating system for test quality (completely revised edition)]. Amsterdam: NIP.
16. Evers, A., Zaal, J. N., & Evers, A. K. (2002). Ontwikkelingen in testgebruik over een periode van 33 jaar [Developments in test use over a period of 33 years]. De Psycholoog, 37, 54-61.
17. Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika, 10, 255-282.
18. Hambleton, R. K., Jaeger, R. M., Plake, B. S., & Mills, C. (2000). Setting performance standards on complex educational assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 355-366.
19. International Test Commission. (2003). International Guidelines on Computer-Based and Internet Delivered Testing. Bruxelles, Belgium: Author.
20. Keuning, J. (2004). De ontwikkeling van een beoordelingssysteem voor het beoordelen van 'Computer Based Tests' [The development of a rating system for the evaluation of 'Computer Based Tests']. POK Memorandum 2004-1. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Citogroep.
21. Kingsbury, G. G., & Zara, A. R. (1991). A comparison of procedures for content sensitive item selection in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 241-261.
22. Lindley, P. A. (2009, July). Using EFPA Criteria as a common standard to review tests and instruments in different countries. In D. Bartram (Chair),National approaches to test quality assurance. Symposium conducted at The 11th European Congress of Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
23. Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. The Hague: Mouton.
24. Moosbrugger, H., Kelava, A., Hagemeister, C., Kersting, M., Lang, F., Reimann, G., et al. (2009, July). The German Test Review System (TBS-TK) and first experiences. In D. Bartram (Chair), National approaches to test quality assurance. Symposium conducted at The 11th European Congress of Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
25. Nielsen, S. L. (2009, July). Test certification through DNV in Norway. In D. Bartram (Chair), National approaches to test quality assurance. Symposium conducted at The 11th European Congress of Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
26. NIP. (1969). Documentatie van Tests en Testresearch in Nederland [Documentation of Tests and Testresearch in The Netherlands]. Amsterdam: Nederlands Instituut van Psychologen.
27. Novick, M. R., & Lewis, C. (1987). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measures. Psychometrika, 82, 1-13.
28. Parshall, C. G., Spray, J. A., Kalohn, J. C., & Davey, T. (2002). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York: Springer Verlag.
29. Prieto, G., & Muñiz, J. (2000). Un modelo para evaluar la calidad de los tests utilizados en España [A model for the evaluation of test quality in Spain]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 77, 65-71.
30. Reise, S. P., & Havilund, M. G. (2005). Item response theory and the measurement of clinical change. Journal of Personality Measurement, 84, 228-238.
31. Resing, W. C. M., Evers, A., Koomen, H. M. Y., Pameijer, N. K., & Bleichrodt, N. (2008). Indi-catiestelling speciaal onderwijs en leerlinggebonden financiering. Condities en instrumentarium [Indication for special indication and pupil-bound financing. Conditions and instruments]. Amsterdam: Boom test uitgevers.
32. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
33. Shrout, P. E. (1998). Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 7, 301-317.
34. Sijtsma, K. (2009a). Correcting fallacies in validity, reliability, and classification. International Journal of Testing, 9, 167-194.
35. Sijtsma, K. (2009b). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107-120.
36. Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Geisinger, K. F. (Eds.) (2010). The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
37. Swets, J. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285-1293.
38. Ten Berge, J. M. F., & Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613-625.
39. Ter Laak, J. J. F., & De Goede, M. P. M. (2003). Psychologische diagnostiek. Inhoudelijke en methodol-ogische grondslagen [Psychological diagnostics. Foundations regarding content and methodology]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
40. Tideman, E. (2007). Psychological tests and testing in Sweden. Testing International, 17(June), 5-7.
41. Vos, H. J., & Knuver, J. W. M. (2000). Standaarden in onderwijsevaluatie [Standards in educational evaluation]. In R. J. Bosker (Ed.), Onderwijskundig lexicon (Editie 3), Evalueren in het onderwijs (pp. 59-76). Alphen aan de Rijn, The Netherlands: Samsom.
42. Wechsler, S. (2007). Test standards, development and use in Brazil. Testing International, 17(June), 3-4.
43. Wools, S., Sanders, P., & Roelofs, E. (2007). Beoordelingsinstrument: Kwaliteit van competentie assessment [Evaluation instrument for the quality of competence assessment]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
44. Zachary, R. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1985). Continuous norming: Implications for the WAIS-R. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 86-94.