Defining and distinguishing validity: Interpretations of score meaning and justifications of test use

Psychological Methods

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 31-43

  Cizek, Gregory J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Validation; Validity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84861991071     PISSN: 1082989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0026975     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1974). 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. Washington, DC: Author.
4. Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490026
5. Borsboom, D., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2007). Test validity in cognitive assessment. In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl, Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education (pp. 85-116). Cambridge, England; Cambridge University Press.
6. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
7. Brennan, R. L. (2006). Perspectives on the evolution and future of educational measurement. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 1-16). Westport, CT: Praeger.
8. Briggs, K. C., Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator-Form M. Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
9. Camilli, G. (2006). Test fairness. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 221-256). Westport, CT: Praeger.
10. Cizek, G. J. (2011, April). Error of measurement: Reconsidering validity theory and the place of consequences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
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. Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. M. (Eds.). (2009). What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Ebel, R. L. (1961). Must all tests be valid? American Psychologist, 16, 640-647. doi:10.1037/h0045478
14. Fleenor, J. W. (2001). Review of Meyers-Briggs type indicator. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 816-818). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
15. Frisbie, D. A. (2005). Measurement 101: Some fundamentals revisited. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(3), 21-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00016.x
16. Geisinger, K. F. (1992). The metamorphosis of test validation. Educational Psychologist, 27, 197-222. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2702_5
17. Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427-439.
18. Guion, R. M. (1980). On trinitarian doctrines of validity. Professional Psychology, 11, 385-398. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.11.3.385
19. Hood, S. B. (2009). Validity in psychological testing and scientific realism. Theory & Psychology, 19, 451-473. doi:10.1177/0959354309336320
20. Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use. Social Indicators Research, 103, 219-230. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9843-4
21. Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validation. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527
22. Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x
23. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17-64). Westport, CT: Praeger.
24. Kane, M. T. (2009). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity (pp. 39-64). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
25. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
26. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
27. Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
28. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30. Markus, K. A. (1998). Science, measurement, and validity: Is completion of Samuel Messick's synthesis possible? Social Indicators Research, 45, 7-34. doi:10.1023/A:1006960823277
31. Mastrangelo, P. M. (2001). Review of Meyers-Briggs type indicator. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 818-819). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
32. Mehrens, W. A. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 16-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00588.x
33. Messick, S. (1975). The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist, 30, 955-966. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.955
34. Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment American Psychologist, 35, 1012-1027. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012
35. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
36. Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35-44. doi:10.1023/A:1006964925094
37. Moss, P. A. (1998). The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 6-12. doi:10.1111/ j.1745-3992.1998.tb00826.x
38. Pace, C. R. (1972). Review of the Comparative Guidance and Placement Program. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The seventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1026-1028). Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon.
39. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40. Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63, 467-488.
41. Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern, wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9-13. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00586.x
42. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practices. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
43. Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.
44. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00585.x
45. Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Tenopyr, M. L. (1966, April). Construct-consequences confusion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
47. Wainer, H., & Braun, H. I. (Eds.). (1988). Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Validity: Foundational issues and statistical methodology. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Psychometrics (pp. 45-79). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
49. Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Validity as contextualized as pragmatic explanation and its implications for validation practice. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions and applications (pp. 65-82). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.