Abstract
AbstractDespite agreement about the central importance of validity for educational and psychological testing, consensus regarding the definition of validity remains elusive. Differences in the definition of validity are examined and reveals that a potential cause of disagreement stems from differences in word use and meanings given to key terms commonly employed when discussing validity. A proposal for the meaning and use of specific terms is offered and a framework that divides issues associated with validity is presented. Specifically, the framework divides what Messick termed “an integrated evaluative judgment” into three components: Instrument Validity, Verification of Interpretation and Decision, and Utility of Actions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
