Correcting Fallacies about Validity as the Most Fundamental Concept in Educational and Psychological Measurement

Vahit Bademci̇
{"title":"Correcting Fallacies about Validity as the Most Fundamental Concept in Educational and Psychological Measurement","authors":"Vahit Bademci̇","doi":"10.31458/iejes.1140672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Validity is the most fundamental cerebration in educational and psychological testing. That is to say, validity is a crucial concept in psychometrics, but it is still misunderstood and misused. Validity has changed in the last 100 years, in other words, evolved. Validity is the degree to which evidence and theory support the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed interpretations and uses of the scores obtained from the test or measurement instrument applied to a particular population or sample. In short, validity is not a property of a test or measurement instrument itself, but it is a property of the proposed interpretations and uses of the scores. Thus, such statements as ‘the test is valid’, ‘the validity of scale’ or ‘the scores are valid’ should not be used. The most authoritative source regarding the development and evaluation of educational and psychological tests is published by name of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and briefly referred to as the Standards. The view of content validity, criterion-related validity and construct validity supported in 1966 Standards was quitted in 1999 Standards.","PeriodicalId":187210,"journal":{"name":"International e-Journal of Educational Studies","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International e-Journal of Educational Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.1140672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Validity is the most fundamental cerebration in educational and psychological testing. That is to say, validity is a crucial concept in psychometrics, but it is still misunderstood and misused. Validity has changed in the last 100 years, in other words, evolved. Validity is the degree to which evidence and theory support the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed interpretations and uses of the scores obtained from the test or measurement instrument applied to a particular population or sample. In short, validity is not a property of a test or measurement instrument itself, but it is a property of the proposed interpretations and uses of the scores. Thus, such statements as ‘the test is valid’, ‘the validity of scale’ or ‘the scores are valid’ should not be used. The most authoritative source regarding the development and evaluation of educational and psychological tests is published by name of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and briefly referred to as the Standards. The view of content validity, criterion-related validity and construct validity supported in 1966 Standards was quitted in 1999 Standards.
纠正教育与心理测量中最基本概念效度的谬误
效度是教育和心理测试中最基本的研究内容。也就是说,效度是心理测量学中的一个重要概念,但它仍然被误解和误用。在过去的100年里,有效性发生了变化,换句话说,进化了。有效性是证据和理论支持对应用于特定人群或样本的测试或测量工具获得的分数所提出的解释和使用的充分性和适当性的程度。简而言之,有效性不是测试或测量工具本身的属性,而是分数的建议解释和使用的属性。因此,诸如“测试是有效的”、“量表的有效性”或“分数是有效的”这样的陈述不应该被使用。关于教育和心理测试的发展和评价的最权威资料是《教育和心理测试标准》,简称《标准》。1966年标准所支持的内容效度、标度相关效度和构念效度观在1999年标准中被抛弃。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信