Validity Semantics in Educational and Psychological Assessment

Q2 Social Sciences
John D. Hathcoat
{"title":"Validity Semantics in Educational and Psychological Assessment","authors":"John D. Hathcoat","doi":"10.7275/AY6P-XW09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The semantics, or meaning, of validity is a fluid concept in educational and psychological testing. Contemporary controversies surrounding this concept appear to stem from the proper location of validity. Under one view, validity is a property of score-based inferences and entailed uses of test scores. This view is challenged by the instrument-based approach, which contends that tests themselves are either valid or invalid. These perspectives are contrasted by their ontological and epistemological emphases, as well as their breadth of validation focus. Ontologically, these positions diverge in their alliance with psychometric realism, or the position that attributes characterizing the aim of psychological and educational measurement exist in the actual world and that claims about their existence can be justified. Epistemologically, these positions deviate in the function of truth when accepting validity claims and inform distinct lines of inquiry in the validation process. Finally, validity under the instrument-based approach is restricted to a single proposition –namely, that observed score variation is caused by an underlying attribute. Though seemingly arbitrary, these distinct validity semantics may have a range of implications on assessment practices.","PeriodicalId":20361,"journal":{"name":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7275/AY6P-XW09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The semantics, or meaning, of validity is a fluid concept in educational and psychological testing. Contemporary controversies surrounding this concept appear to stem from the proper location of validity. Under one view, validity is a property of score-based inferences and entailed uses of test scores. This view is challenged by the instrument-based approach, which contends that tests themselves are either valid or invalid. These perspectives are contrasted by their ontological and epistemological emphases, as well as their breadth of validation focus. Ontologically, these positions diverge in their alliance with psychometric realism, or the position that attributes characterizing the aim of psychological and educational measurement exist in the actual world and that claims about their existence can be justified. Epistemologically, these positions deviate in the function of truth when accepting validity claims and inform distinct lines of inquiry in the validation process. Finally, validity under the instrument-based approach is restricted to a single proposition –namely, that observed score variation is caused by an underlying attribute. Though seemingly arbitrary, these distinct validity semantics may have a range of implications on assessment practices.
教育与心理评价的效度语义
在教育和心理测试中,效度的语义或意义是一个流动的概念。围绕这一概念的当代争议似乎源于有效性的适当位置。在一种观点下,有效性是基于分数的推理的属性,需要使用测试分数。这种观点受到基于工具的方法的挑战,这种方法认为测试本身要么有效,要么无效。这些观点对比了他们的本体论和认识论的重点,以及他们的广度验证焦点。在本体论上,这些立场在与心理测量现实主义的联盟中存在分歧,或者认为表征心理和教育测量目标的属性存在于现实世界中,并且关于它们存在的主张可以被证明是合理的。在认识论上,当接受有效性声明时,这些立场偏离了真理的功能,并在验证过程中通知了不同的调查线。最后,基于工具的方法下的有效性仅限于一个命题-即,观察到的分数变化是由潜在属性引起的。虽然看似武断,但这些不同的有效性语义可能对评估实践产生一系列影响。
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
CiteScore
2.60
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信