共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 718 毫秒
1.
Dorien Hopster‐den Otter Saskia Wools Theo J. H. M. Eggen Bernard P. Veldkamp 《Journal of Educational Measurement》2019,56(4):715-732
In educational practice, test results are used for several purposes. However, validity research is especially focused on the validity of summative assessment. This article aimed to provide a general framework for validating formative assessment. The authors applied the argument‐based approach to validation to the context of formative assessment. This resulted in a proposed interpretation and use argument consisting of a score interpretation and a score use. The former involves inferences linking specific task performance to an interpretation of a student's general performance. The latter involves inferences regarding decisions about actions and educational consequences. The validity argument should focus on critical claims regarding score interpretation and score use, since both are critical to the effectiveness of formative assessment. The proposed framework is illustrated by an operational example including a presentation of evidence that can be collected on the basis of the framework. 相似文献
2.
Christopher DeLuca 《Educational research; a review for teachers and all concerned with progress in education》2013,55(3):303-320
Background:?Validity theory has evolved significantly over the past 30 years in response to the increased use of assessments across scientific, social and educational settings. The overarching trajectory of this evolution reflects a shift from a purely quantitative, positivistic approach to a conception of validity reliant on the interpretation of multiple evidence sources integrated into validity arguments. Moreover, within contemporary validity, interpretation has been emphasised as a central process; however, despite this emphasis, there have been few explicit articulations of specific interpretive methodologies applicable to the practice of validation. Purpose:?To link contemporary theoretical foundations in validity to practical methods and structures to help guide the collection and analysis of interpretive validity evidence. By building upon existing validity theory, this paper aims to provide greater clarity on the practice of validation and contribute toward the larger developing framework for the validation of educational assessments. Source of evidence:?An interdisciplinary, integrative review of over 60 research articles and sources related to the theory and practice of educational validation and interpretive inquiry approaches. Sources include literature from the fields of educational assessment and more broadly social scientific research. Main argument:?As assessments in education increasingly aim to measure complex constructs that are value-laden and socially dependant, validity theory must keep pace and evolve in ways that address the inherent complexities associated with contemporary educational assessment. Through this paper, I assert that a greater understanding of interpretive methodologies represents one of the most promising areas for development of validation theory and practice. Specifically, I argue that dialectic, hermeneutic and transgressive forms of inquiry can be integrated within current argument-based structures for the collection, analysis and representation of validity evidence in several useful ways. Conclusions:?Interpretive inquiry processes, namely dialectic, hermeneutic and transgressive forms of interpretation, serve to expand validation practice to include diverse evidences for the generation of multiple-perspective validity arguments. The paper concludes with specific implications for future research and practice within the field of interpretive validity theory. 相似文献
3.
David Pepper 《Educational Measurement》2020,39(4):8-20
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing identify several strands of validity evidence that may be needed as support for particular interpretations and uses of assessments. Yet assessment validation often does not seem guided by these Standards, with validations lacking a particular strand even when it appears relevant to an assessment. Consequently, the degree to which validity evidence supports the proposed interpretation and use of the assessment may be compromised. Guided by the Standards, this article presents an independent validation of OECD's PISA assessment of mathematical self-efficacy (MSE) as an instructive example of this issue. OECD identifies MSE as one of a number of “factors” explaining student performance in mathematics, thereby serving the “policy orientation” of PISA. However, this independent validation identifies significant shortcomings in the strands of validity evidence available to support this interpretation and use of the assessment. The article therefore demonstrates how the Standards can guide the planning of a validation to ensure it generates the validity evidence relevant to an interpretive argument, particularly for an international large-scale assessment such as PISA. The implication is that assessment validation could yet benefit from the Standards as what Zumbo calls “a global force for testing”. 相似文献
4.
Assessments that function close to classroom teaching and learning can play a powerful role in fostering academic achievement. Unfortunately, however, relatively little attention has been given to discussion of the design and validation of such assessments. The present article presents a framework for conceptualizing and organizing the multiple components of validity applicable to assessments intended for use in the classroom to support ongoing processes of teaching and learning. The conceptual framework builds on existing validity concepts and focuses attention on three components: cognitive validity, instructional validity, and inferential validity. The goal in presenting the framework is to clarify the concept of validity, including key components of the interpretive argument, while considering the types and forms of evidence needed to construct a validity argument for classroom assessments. The framework's utility is illustrated by presenting an application to the analysis of the validity of assessments embedded within an elementary mathematics curriculum. 相似文献
5.
Wayne J. Camara Krista Mattern Michelle Croft Sara Vispoel Paul Nichols 《Educational Measurement》2019,38(4):12-26
In 2018, 26 states administered a college admissions test to all public school juniors. Nearly half of those states proposed to use those scores as their academic achievement indicators for federal accountability under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); many others are planning to use those scores for other accountability purposes. Accountability encompasses a number of different uses and subsumes a variety of claims. For states proposing to use summative tests for accountability, a validity argument needs to be developed, which entails delineating each specific use of test scores associated with accountability, identifying appropriate evidence, and offering a rebuttal to counterclaims. The aim of this article is to support states in developing a validity argument for use of college admission test scores for accountability by identifying claims that are applicable across states, along with summarizing existing evidence as it relates to each of these claims. As outlined by The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, multiple sources of evidence are used to address each claim. A series of threats to the validity argument, including weaker alignment with content standards and potential influences in narrowing teaching, are reviewed. Finally, the article contrasts validity evidence, primarily from research on the ACT, with regulatory requirements from ESSA. The Standards and guidance addressing the use of a “nationally recognized high school academic assessment” (Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Department of Education) are the primary sources for the organization of validity evidence. 相似文献
6.
Most discipline-based education researchers (DBERs) were formally trained in the methods of scientific disciplines such as biology, chemistry, and physics, rather than social science disciplines such as psychology and education. As a result, DBERs may have never taken specific courses in the social science research methodology—either quantitative or qualitative—on which their scholarship often relies so heavily. One particular aspect of (quantitative) social science research that differs markedly from disciplines such as biology and chemistry is the instrumentation used to quantify phenomena. In response, this Research Methods essay offers a contemporary social science perspective on test validity and the validation process. The instructional piece explores the concepts of test validity, the validation process, validity evidence, and key threats to validity. The essay also includes an in-depth example of a validity argument and validation approach for a test of student argument analysis. In addition to DBERs, this essay should benefit practitioners (e.g., lab directors, faculty members) in the development, evaluation, and/or selection of instruments for their work assessing students or evaluating pedagogical innovations. 相似文献
7.
The Chinese Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (trial) (CECERS) is a new instrument for measuring early childhood program quality in the Chinese socio-cultural contexts, based on substantial adaptation from the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition (ECERS-R). This paper describes the development and validation process of CECERS. Empirical data were collected from a stratified random sample 178 classrooms, from which a random sample of 1012 children was measured for child development outcomes. Guided by the framework of broad conceptualization of validity and validation as advocated by Messick (1989), evidence in a variety of forms is presented and discussed, including content validity considerations (e.g., measuring socially and culturally relevant domains), measurement reliability considerations (e.g., internal consistency reliability, inter-rater reliability), and measurement validity considerations (concurrent validity, criterion-related validity, internal structure based on exploratory factor analysis). The empirical findings for CECERS compare very favorably with the validation outcomes of ECERS-R. The body of evidence accumulated in the validation process supports the use and interpretation of CECERS scores as quality indicators of early childhood education program in the Chinese social and cultural contexts. Limitations and future directions are also discussed. 相似文献
8.
1985年《教育与心理测验标准》(第5版)出版之前,效度研究的核心概念是"效标(criterion)",效度研究被视为一种用"效标"对测验的效度进行证明(verify)、对测验分数做出有效(valid)解释的过程。1985年以后,效度研究的核心概念是"证据(evidence)",效度研究被视为一种通过积累证据对测验的效度进行支持(support)、对测验分数做出合理(reasonable)解释的过程。关于效度的这种理解,突出体现在1999年出版的《教育与心理测验标准》(第6版)中。美国教育协会和美国国家教育测量学会共同组织编写的《教育测量》在业内被称为"教育测量领域的《圣经》"。2006年《教育测量》(第4版)出版以后,效度研究的核心概念演变为"理由(warrant)",效度研究被视为一种通过构造"理由系统"和"理由网络"对效度进行"论证(argument)"、对测验分数做出可接受的(plausible)解释的过程。本文结合笔者的考试实践,介绍了效度概念的新发展。 相似文献
9.
This article addresses issues in evaluating the consequences of assessment programs that are developed for the purpose of holding schools accountable to state standards. After providing a brief review of research examining consequential evidence, a validation study to obtain consequential evidence for state assessment and accountability programs is proposed. The proposal includes a validity argument, a set of propositions that follow from the validity argument, a delineation of the consequential evidence needed, and a way to model the relationship between performance gains and school, principal, teacher, and student variables. 相似文献
10.
The concept of validity in theory and practice 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
Simon Wolming Christina Wikström 《Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice》2010,17(2):117-132
The concept of validity, as described in the literature, has changed over time to become a broad and rather complex issue. The purpose of this paper is to investigate if practice has followed theory, or if there is a gap between validity in theory and validity in practice. It compares the theoretical development of the concept of validity with the methodology adopted in validity studies over time. Important phases in the history of validity, and also common arguments for and against traditional and modern validity perspectives, are presented and discussed. Thereafter, three Swedish research projects aiming to validate instruments used for selection to higher education are described. The idea is to use these projects as examples of contemporary practice, and to compare their designs, research questions and outcomes with how validity was theoretically described during their specific period of time. The conclusions from these comparisons are that practices seem to have followed theory when it comes to how the validity research programmes have been designed, but not when it comes to how they then were carried out in practice. This gap between theory and practice seems to have increased with the introduction of broader and more modern validity perspectives. The scope of the research is more extensive but results are fragmented and there is no evidence of a ‘unified’ validity argument, which has been one of the central aspects in modern validity theory. This supports the arguments that validity theory is difficult to put into practice and that there is a need for guidance on how to prioritise validity questions and interpret validity evidence. 相似文献
11.
Michael T. Kane 《Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice》2016,23(2):198-211
How we choose to use a term depends on what we want to do with it. If validity is to be used to support a score interpretation, validation would require an analysis of the plausibility of that interpretation. If validity is to be used to support score uses, validation would require an analysis of the appropriateness of the proposed uses, and therefore, would require an analysis of the consequences of the uses. In each case, the evidence need for validation would depend on the specific claims being made. 相似文献
12.
Despite the ease of accessing a wide range of measures, little attention is given to validity arguments when considering whether to use the measure for a new purpose or in a different context. Making a validity argument has historically focused on the intended interpretation and use. There has been a press to consider both the intended and actual interpretations and how users make sense of the data when constructing validity arguments, but the practice is not widespread. This paper contributes to existing research on validity by highlighting the value of attending to the actual interpretation and use of a measure aimed at supporting instructional improvement in mathematics. We describe the use of the same measure across two contexts to highlight the importance of attending to characteristics of both users and the contexts in which the measures are used when assessing the validity of inferences for the purpose of instructional improvement efforts. 相似文献
13.
The purpose of this study is to investigate how 'comparative argument', namely references to the educational policies and practices of other countries, was used by Greek politicians in the framework of the 1997-1998 educational reform. Employing the method of quantitative and qualitative content analysis, we attempted, on the basis of original sources (parliamentary minutes/debates) both to count and interpret the comparative references. Our research questions were: do politicians in Greece use the comparative argument and in what way? Which specific countries, issues and practices is comparative argument centred on? What is the form, the role and the quality of the comparative argument? 相似文献
14.
Gill Nicholls 《Teaching in Higher Education》2013,18(1):29-42
This paper demonstrates how the introduction of the word scholarship in respect to teaching has become confused and misplaced and used to sustain and enhance a particular type of credibility to activities related to the enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education. Bourdieu's concept of symbolic culture is used to construct the argument and show how the use of the term ‘Scholarship of Teaching’ needs to be re‐examined and conceptualized. Twenty‐five academics from a variety of disciplines were interviewed to give their perceptions on the notion of scholarship, the scholarship of teaching, and the scholarship in teaching. These data were used to develop a framework for understanding and possibly reconsidering the role of the scholarship of teaching. 相似文献
15.
Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) are the 1% of the total student population who have a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviors and who require individualized instruction and substantial supports. Historically, these students have received little instruction in science and the science assessments they have participated in have not included age‐appropriate science content. Guided by a theory of action for a new assessment system, an eight‐state consortium developed multidimensional alternate content standards and alternate assessments in science for students in three grade bands (3–5, 6–8, 9–12) that are linked to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013 ) and A Framework for K‐12 Science Education (Framework; National Research Council, 2012 ). The great variability within the population of students with SCD necessitates variability in the assessment content, which creates inherent challenges in establishing technical quality. To address this issue, a primary feature of this assessment system is the use of hypothetical cognitive models to provide a structure for variability in assessed content. System features and subsequent validity studies were guided by a theory of action that explains how the proposed claims about score interpretation and use depend on specific assumptions about the assessment, as well as precursors to the assessment. This paper describes evidence for the main claim that test scores represent what students know and can do. We present validity evidence for the assumptions about the assessment and its precursors, related to this main claim. The assessment was administered to over 21,000 students in eight states in 2015–2016. We present selected evidence from system components, procedural evidence, and validity studies. We evaluate the validity argument and demonstrate how it supports the claim about score interpretation and use. 相似文献
16.
Stefanie A. Wind 《Journal of Educational Measurement》2019,56(3):478-504
Numerous researchers have proposed methods for evaluating the quality of rater‐mediated assessments using nonparametric methods (e.g., kappa coefficients) and parametric methods (e.g., the many‐facet Rasch model). Generally speaking, popular nonparametric methods for evaluating rating quality are not based on a particular measurement theory. On the other hand, popular parametric methods for evaluating rating quality are often based on measurement theories such as invariant measurement. However, these methods are based on assumptions and transformations that may not be appropriate for ordinal ratings. In this study, I show how researchers can use Mokken scale analysis (MSA), which is a nonparametric approach to item response theory, to evaluate rating quality within the framework of invariant measurement without the use of potentially inappropriate parametric techniques. I use an illustrative analysis of data from a rater‐mediated writing assessment to demonstrate how one can use numeric and graphical indicators from MSA to gather evidence of validity, reliability, and fairness. The results from the analyses suggest that MSA provides a useful framework within which to evaluate rater‐mediated assessments for evidence of validity, reliability, and fairness that can supplement existing popular methods for evaluating ratings. 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
Evaluating the multiple characteristics of alignment has taken a prominent role in educational assessment and accountability systems given its attention in the No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB). Leading to this rise in popularity, alignment methodologies that examined relationships among curriculum, academic content standards, instruction, and assessments were proposed as strategies to evaluate evidence of the intended uses and interpretations of test scores. In this article, we propose a framework for evaluating alignment studies based on similar concepts that have been recommended for standard setting (Kane). This framework provides guidance to practitioners about how to identify sources of validity evidence for an alignment study and make judgments about the strength of the evidence that may impact the interpretation of the results. 相似文献
20.
高等教育学学科研究：反思与批判 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
文章对高等教育学学科研究的四个问题进行了反思与批判。这四个问题是：高等教育学的学科性质是什么?库恩的范式理论是判断学科合法性的标准吗?高等教育学独立的研究方法是必需的吗?如何认识高等教育学是学科和高等教育是研究领域? 相似文献