Assessing the quality of tests: Revision of the EFPA review model;Evaluación de la calidad de los tests: revisión del modelo de evaluación de la EFPA

Psicothema

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 283-291

  Evers, Arne ^a   Muñiz, José ^b   Hagemeister, Carmen ^c   Hstmælingen, Andreas ^d   Lindley, Patricia ^e   Sjöberg, Anders ^f   Bartram, Dave ^e  

^a Dutch Association of Psychologists   (Netherlands)

^b Spanish Psychological Association ^*  (Spain)

^c German Psychological Association   (Germany)

^d Norsk Psykologforening   (Norway)

^e BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY   (United Kingdom)

^f Swedish Psychological Association   (Sweden)

Author keywords

EFPA; Test quality; Test review; Test use

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EDUCATION; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; PSYCHOLOGY; STANDARD; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EUROPE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC;

EID: 84880961544     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2013.97     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Abad, F.J., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & García, C. (2011). Medición en Ciencias Sociales y de la Salud [Measurement in social health sciences]. Madrid: Síntesis.
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. Bartram, D. (1996). Test qualifi cations and test use in the UK: The competence approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 62-71.
4. Bartram, D. (2002). Review model for the description and evaluation of psychological tests. Brussels: European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (EFPA).
5. Bartram, D. (2011). Contributions of the EFPA Standing Committee on Tests and Testing (SCTT) to standards and good practice. European Psychologist, 16, 149-159.
6. Bartram, D., & Coyne, I. (1998). Variations in national patterns of testing and test use: The ITC/EFPPA international survey. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14, 249-260.
7. Bartram, D., & Hambleton, R.K. (Eds.) (2006). Computer-based testing and the Internet. Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons.
8. Bartram, D., Lindley, P. A., & Foster, J. M. (1990). A review of psychometric tests for assessment in vocational training. Sheffi eld, UK: The Training Agency.
9. Bechger, T., Hemker, B., & Maris, G. (2009). Over het gebruik van continue normering [On the use of continuous norming]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
10. Bennett, R.E. (1999). Using new technology to improve assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. 18(3), 5-12.
11. Bennett, R.E. (2006). Inexorable and inevitable: The continuing story of technology and assessment. In D. Bartram & R.K. Hambleton (Eds.), Computer-based testing and the Internet (pp. 201-217). Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons.
12. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071.
13. Breithaupt, K.J., Mills, C.N., & Melican, G.J. (2006). Facing the opportunities of the future. In D. Bartram & R.K. Hambleton (Eds.), Computer-based testing and the Internet (pp. 219-251). Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons.
14. Brennan, R.L. (Ed.) (2006). Educational measurement. Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
15. Byrne, B.M., Leong, F.T., Hambleton, R.K., Oakland, T., van de Vijver, F.J., & Cheung, F.M. (2009). A critical analysis of cross-cultural research and testing practices: Implications for improved education and training in psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(2), 94-105.
16. Calvo, N., Gutiérrez, F., Andión, O., Caseras, X., Torrubia, R., & Casas, M. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the selfreport personality diagnostic questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) in psychiatric outpatients. Psicothema, 24, 156-160.
17. De Ayala, R.J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Press.
18. Downing, S.M., & Haladyna, T.M. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of test development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Drasgow, F., Luecht, R.M., & Bennett, R.E. (2006). Technology and testing. In R.L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 471-515). Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
20. 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 to the theory and application of psychological tests (4th revised ed.)]. Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Stafl eu van Loghum.
21. Elosua, P., Hambleton, R., & Muñiz, J. (2013). Teoría de la respuesta al ítem aplicada con R [Item response theory applied with R]. Madrid: La Muralla.
22. European Federation of Professional Psychologists' Associations (2005). Meta-code of ethics. Brussels: Author (www.efpa.eu).
23. Evers, A. (2001a). Improving test quality in the Netherlands: Results of 18 years of test ratings. International Journal of Testing, 1, 137-153.
24. Evers, A. (2001b). The revised Dutch rating system for test quality. International Journal of Testing, 1, 155-182.
25. Evers, A. (2012). The Internationalization of Test Reviewing: Trends, differences and results. International Journal of Testing, 12, 136-156.
26. Evers, A., Lucassen, W., Meijer, R., & Sijtsma, K. (2010). COTAN Beoordelingssysteem voor de Kwaliteit van Tests (geheel herziene versie; gewijzigde herdruk) [COTAN Rating system for test quality (completely revised edition; revised reprint)]. Amsterdam: NIP.
27. stCentury: Developments and European psychologists' opinions. European Psychologist, 17, 300-319.
28. Evers, A., Sijtsma, K., Lucassen, W., & Meijer, R.R. (2010). The Dutch review process for evaluating the quality of psychological tests: History, procedure and results. International Journal of Testing, 10, 295-317.
29. Fernández-Ballesteros, R., De Bruyn, E., Godoy, A., Hornke, L., Ter Laak, J., Vizcarro, C., et al. (2001). Guidelines for the assessment process (GAP): A proposal for discussion. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 187-200.
30. Goodman, D.P., & Hambleton, R.K. (2004). Student test score reports and interpretive guides: Review of current practices and suggestions for future research. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 145-220.
31. stcentury. Psicothema, 16, 696-701.
32. stcentury. Key Note Address, University of Oviedo, Spain.
33. Hambleton, R.K., Merenda, P.F., & Spielberger, C.D. (Eds.) (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35. Irvine, S., & Kyllonen, P. (Eds.) (2002). Item generation for test development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. ISO (2011). Procedures and methods to assess people in work and organizational settings (part 1 and 2). Geneva: Author.
37. Joint Committee on Testing Practices (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
38. Koocher, G., & Kith-Spiegel, P. (2007). Ethics in psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Leach, M., & Oakland, T. (2007). Ethics standards impacting test development and use: A review of 31 ethics codes impacting practices in 35 countries. International Journal of Testing, 7, 71-88.
40. Leeson, H.V. (2006). The mode effect: A literature review of human and technological issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 1-24.
41. Lindley, P.A. (2009). Reviewing translated and adapted tests. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
42. Lindley, P.A., Bartram, D., & Kennedy, N. (2008). EFPA Review Model for the description and evaluation of psychological tests: Test review form and notes for reviewers: Version 3.42. Brussels: EFPA Standing Committee on Tests and Testing (September, 2008).
43. ndEdition. Leicester, UK: BPS Books.
44. Lindsay, G., Koene, C., Ovreeide. H., & Lang, F. (Eds.) (2008). Ethics for European psychologists. Göttingen, Germany, and Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe.
45. Mills, C.N., Potenza, M.T., Fremer, J.J., & Ward, W.C. (Eds.) (2002). Computer-based testing: Building the foundation for future assessments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Muñiz, J. (1997). Introducción a la teoría de respuesta a los ítems [Introduction to item response theory]. Madrid: Pirámide.
47. Muñiz, J. (2012). Perspectivas actuales y retos futuros de la evaluación psicológica [Current perspectives and future challenges of psychological evaluation]. In C. Zúñiga (Ed.), Psicología, sociedad y equidad [Psychology, society and equity]. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile.
48. Muñiz, J., & Bartram, D. (2007). Improving international tests and testing. European Psychologist, 12, 206-219.
49. Muñiz, J., Bartram, D., Evers, A., Boben, D., Matesic, K., Glabeke, K., et al. (2001). Testing practices in European countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 201-211.
50. Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R.K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: segunda edición [International Test Commission Guidelines for test translation and adaptation: Second edition]. Psicothema, 25, 151-157.
51. Muñiz, J., & Fernández-Hermida, J.R. (2000). La utilización de los tests en España [Test use in Spain]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 76, 41-49.
52. Muñiz, J., Prieto, G., Almeida, L., & Bartram, D. (1999). Test use in Spain, Portugal and Latin American countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 151-157.
53. Nogueira, R., Godoy, A., Romero, P., Gavino, A., & Cobos, M.P. (2012). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión española del Obssesive Belief Questionnaire-Children Version (OBQ-CV) en una muestra no clínica [Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Obsessive Belief Questionnaire-Children's Version in a non-clinical sample]. Psicothema, 24, 674-679.
54. Olea, J., Abad, F., & Barrada, J.R. (2010). Tests informatizados y otros nuevos tipos de tests [Computerized tests and other new types of tests]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31, 94-107.
55. Ortiz, S., Navarro, C., García, E., Ramis, C., & Manassero, M.A. (2012). Validación de la versión española de la escala de trabajo emocional de Frankfurt [Validation of the Spanish version of the Frankfurt Emotion Work Scales]. Psicothema, 24, 337-342.
56. Parshall, C.G., Spray, J.A., Davey, T., & Kalohn, J. (2001). Practical considerations in computer-based testing. New York: Springer Verlag.
57. Phelps, R. (Ed.) (2005). Defending standardized testing. London: Erlbaum.
58. Phelps, R. (Ed.) (2008). Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Psychological Association.
59. 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.
60. Shermis, M.D., & Burstein, J.C. (Eds.) (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Sireci, S., & Zenisky, A.L. (2006). Innovative items format in computerbased testing: In pursuit of construct representation. In S.M. Downing & T.M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 329-348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Van der Linden, W.J., & Glas, C.A.W. (Eds.) (2010). Elements of adaptive testing. London: Springer.
63. Van der Linden, W.J., & Hambleton, R.K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
64. Williamson, D.M., Xi, X., & Breyer, J. (2012). A framework for evaluation and use of automated scoring. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31(1), 2-13.
65. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Zachary, R.A., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1985). Continuous norming: Implications for the WAIS-R. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 86-94.
67. Zenisky, A.L., & Sireci, S.G. (2002). Technological innovations in largescale assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 337-362.