A given assessment may be used for many different purposes, and inferences about the results may have greater validity for one purpose than for another. Validity does not exist on an all-or-none basis ( Miller et al., 2013) there are degrees of validity depending on the purpose of the assessment and how the results are to be used. The emphasis is on the consequences of measurement: Does the teacher make accurate interpretations about learners’ knowledge or ability based on their assessment scores? Assessment experts increasingly suggest that in addition to collecting evidence to support the accuracy of inferences made, evidence also should be collected about the intended and unintended consequences of the use of a test ( Brookhart & Nitko, 2019 Goodwin, 1997 Goodwin & Goodwin, 1999). Validity refers to the adequacy and appropriateness of those interpretations and inferences and how the assessment results are used ( Miller et al., 2013).
Tests and other assessment instruments yield scores that teachers use to make inferences about how much learners know or what they can do. The current philosophy of validity continues to focus not on assessment tools themselves or on the appropriateness of using a test for a specific purpose, but on the meaningfulness of the interpretations that teachers make of assessment results. The usefulness of the validity “triad” also was questioned increasingly, measurement experts recognized that construct validity was the key element and unifying concept of validity ( Goodwin, 1997 Goodwin & Goodwin, 1999). Validity was defined in terms of the appropriateness and usefulness of the inferences made from assessments, and assessment validation was seen as a process of collecting evidence to support those inferences. In the 1980s, the understanding of validity shifted again, to an emphasis on providing evidence to support the particular inferences that teachers make from assessment results. Most measurement textbooks of that era classified validity by three types-content, criterion-related, and construct-and suggested that validation of a test should include more than one approach. The concept of validity changed, however, in the 1950s through the 1970s to focus on evidence that an assessment tool is valid for a specific purpose. It was common in that era to support a claim of validity with evidence that a test correlated well with another “true” criterion. Tests were characterized as valid or not, apart from consideration of how they were used. Early definitions, formed in the 1940s and early 1950s, emphasized the validity of an assessment tool itself. It also discusses important practical considerations that might affect the choice or development of tests and other instruments.ĭefinitions of validity have changed over time. This chapter explains the concept of assessment validity, the role of reliability, and their effects on the interpretive quality of assessment results. What are the consequences of the particular uses and interpretations that are made of the results ( Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2013, p. To what extent will the interpretation of the scores be appropriate, meaningful, and useful for the intended application of the results?Ģ.
0 kommentar(er)
