Standards and Guidelines for Validation Practices: Development and Evaluation of Measurement Instruments

Social Indicators Research Series

Volumn 54, Issue , 2014, Pages 9-24

  Chan, Eric K H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Construct Validity; Differential Item Functioning; Item Response Modeling; Psychological Test; Validity Evidence

Indexed keywords

EID: 85200481264     PISSN: 13876570     EISSN: 22150099     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07794-9_2     Document Type: Chapter

References (36)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for education and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. American Psychological Association. (1952). Committee on test standards. Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques: A preliminary proposal. American Psychologist, 7, 461–465.
4. American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 201–238.
5. American Psychological Association. (2002a). Criteria for practice guideline development and evaluation. American Psychologist, 57, 1048–1051.
6. American Psychological Association. (2002b). Criteria for evaluating treatment guidelines. American Psychologist, 57, 1052–1059.
7. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1966). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8. 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.
9. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.
10. Carlson, J. F., & Geisinger, K. F. (2012). Test reviewing at the Buros Center for Testing. International Journal of Testing, 12, 122–135.
11. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. DeMuro, C., Clark, M., Mordin, M., Fehnel, S., Copley-Merriman, C., & Gnanasakthy, A. (2012). Reasons for rejection of patient-reported outcome label claims: A compilation based on a review of patient-reported outcome use among new molecular entities and biologic license applications, 2006–2010. Value in Health, 15, 443–448
13. Eccles, M. P., Grimshaw, J. M., Shekelle, P., Schúnemann, H. J., & Woolf, S. (2012). Developing clinical practice guidelines: Target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implementation Science, 7, 60.
14. European Medicines Agency, Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. (2005). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of Health-Related Quality of Life [HRQL] measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. London: Author.
15. Evers, A., Muñiz, J., Hagemeister, C., Høstmælingen, A., Lindley, P., Sjöberg, A., & Bartram, D. (2013). Assessing the quality of tests: Revision of the EFPA review model. Psicothema, 25, 283–291.
16. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rockville: Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
17. Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (1996). A dialectic on validity: Where we have been and where we are going. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 207–215.
18. Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use. Social Indicators Research, 103, 219–230.
19. Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013). Psychometric characteristics of assessment procedures: An overview. In K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 3–19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
20. International Test Commission. (2001). International guidelines for test use. International Journal of Testing, 1, 93–114.
21. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport: American Council on Education/Praeger.
22. Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73.
23. Markus, K. A., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Frontiers of test validity theory: Measurement, causation, and meaning. New York: Routledge.
24. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
25. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Gibbons, E., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & De Vet, H. C. W. (2010a). Inter-rater agreement and reliability of the COSMIN (COnsensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) checklist. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 82.
26. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & De Vet, H. C. W. (2010b). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549.
27. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010c). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patientreported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 737–745.
28. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205.
29. Shekelle, P. G., Woolf, S. H., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999). Clinical guidelines: Developing guidelines. British Medical Journal, 318, 593–596.
30. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (2003). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). Bowling Green: Author.
31. The AGREE Collaboration. (2003). Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: The AGREE project. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12, 18–23.
32. Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, J., Mendívil, M., et al. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11, 700–708.
33. Woolf, S. H., Grol, R., Hutchinson, A., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999). Clinical guidelines: Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. British Medical Journal, 318, 527–530.
34. Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
35. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Validity: Foundational issues and statistical methodology. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Psychometrics (Handbook of statistics, Vol. 26, pp. 45–79). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
36. Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Validity as contextualized and 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: IAP–Information Age Publishing.