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

Studia Psychologica: Theoria et praxis

Section: Commentaries

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

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

Download files

PDF (Język Polski)

Citation rules

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

Cited by / Share

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.
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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.
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar

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

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.
Google Scholar

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

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

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
Google Scholar

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
Google Scholar