Kontrowersje wokół pojęcia trafności

Jolanta Rytel

doi:10.21697/sp.2021.21.1.03

Published : 2021-08-04

Vol 21 No 1 (2021)

Controversies over the concept of validity

Jolanta Rytel

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9244-7592

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2021.21.1.03

Section: Commentaries

Abstract

In the article the key changes which have occurred in conceptualization of validity are considered. Validity is currently defined in term of the degree to which a proposed interpretation of test scores is justified by evidence and theory (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education [AERA, APA, NCME], 2007, p. 31). Five types of validity evidence are described, and problems with the integrations of various strands of evidence in sound validity argument are discussed. Usefulness of Kane’s argument-based approach to validity referring to informal logic and the structure of the argument introduced by Toulmin is stressed in the article. There is also emphasized the lack of uncontroversial definition of validity.

Keywords

validity ; psychological measurement ; testing standards

Details

References

Statistics

Authors

Download files

PDF (Polish)

Zasady cytowania

Rytel, J. (2021). Controversies over the concept of validity . Studia Psychologica: Theoria Et Praxis, 21(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.21697/sp.2021.21.1.03

Altmetric indicators

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (2007). Standardy dla testów stosowanych w psychologii i pedagogice. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (2014).

Standards for educational and psychological testing [wersja Adobe Digital Edition]. Pobrane z: https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/standards_2014edition.pdf

Anastasi, A., Urbina, S. (1999). Testy psychologiczne. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.

Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: an evolving concept. W: H. Wainer, H. Braun (red.), Test validity (s. 19–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrica, 71, 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061

Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., Kievit, R. A., Scholten, A. Z., Franic, S. (2009). The end of construct validity. W: R. Lissitz (red.), The concept of validity. Revisions, new directions, and applications (s. 135–170). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Campbell, D. T., Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016

Camargo, S. L., Herrera, A. N., Traynor, A. (2018). Looking for a consensus in the discussion about the concept of validity: a Delphi study. Methodology, 14, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000157

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00165.x

Cizek, G. J. (2012). Defining and distinguishing validity: interpretations of score meaning and justifications of test use. Psychological Methods, 17, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026975

Cizek, G. J. (2016). Validating test score meaning and defending test score use: different aims, different methods. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23, 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1063479

Cizek, G. J. (2020). Validity: an integrated approach to test score meaning and use. Nowy Jork, NY: Routledge.

Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S., Koons, H. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410379323

Cizek, G. J., Bowen, D., Church, K. (2010). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests: a follow-up study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407310130

Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. W: R. L. Thorndike (red.), Educational measurement (wyd. 2, s. 443–507). Waszyngton, DC: American Council on Education.

Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. W: H. Wainer, H. Braun (red.), Test validity (s. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cronbach, L. J., Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological test. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

Dorans, N. J., Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenzel and standardization. W: P. W. Holland, H. Wainer (red.), Differential item functioning (s. 35–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fremer, J. (2000). Promoting high standards and the „problem” with construct validation. NCME Newsletter, 8(3), 1.

Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316444600600401

Guion, R. M. (1978). „Content validity” in moderation. Personnel Psychology, 31, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb00440.x

Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527

Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x

Kane, M. T. (2004). Certification testing as a illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement, 2, 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0203_1

Kane, M. T. (2006a). Content-related validity evidence in test development. W: S. M. Downing, T. M. Haladyna (red.), Handbook of test development (s. 115–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kane, M. T. (2006b). Validation. W: R. L. Brennan (red.), Educational measurement (wyd. 4, s. 17–64). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Kane, M. T. (2008). Terminology, emphasis, and utility in validation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08315390

Kane, M. T. (2009). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. W: R. Lissitz (red.), The concept of validity. Revisions, new directions, and applications (s. 39–64). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores’. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000

Kane, M. T. (2016). Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1060192

Lissitz, R. W., Samuelsen, K. (2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher,36, 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07311286

Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, Monograph Supplement, 3, 635–694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635

Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. W: R. L. Linn (red.), Educational measurement (s. 13–103). Nowy Jork, NY: American Counsil on Education and Macmillan.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. Validation of inferences of persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

Murphy, K. R. (2009). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn’t one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01173.x

Newton, P. E., Shaw, S. D. (2013). Standards for talking and thinking about validity. Psychological Methods, 18, 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032969

Newton, P. E., Shaw, S. D. (2016). Disagreement over the best way to use the word ‘validity’ and options for reaching consensus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23, 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1037241

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

Sireci, S. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83–117. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006985528729

Sireci, S. (2009). Packing and unpacking sources of validity evidence: History repeats itself again. W: R. Lissitz (red.), The concept of validity. Revisions, new directions, and applications (s. 19–37). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Spies, R. A., Plake, B. S. (red.). (2005). The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832

Wolming, S., Wikström, C. (2010). The concept of validity in theory and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695941003693856