Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0013164407310130v1
68/3/397    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cizek, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Koons, H. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Sources of Validity Evidence for Educational and Psychological Tests

Gregory J. Cizek

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, cizek{at}unc.edu

Sharyn L. Rosenberg

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Heather H. Koons

Metametrics Inc.

This study investigates aspects of validity reflected in a large and diverse sample of published measures used in educational and psychological testing contexts. The current edition of Mental Measurements Yearbook served as the data source for this study. The validity aspects investigated included perspective on validity represented, number and kinds of sources of validity evidence provided, overall evaluation of the favorability of the test, and whether these factors varied as a function of the type of test. Findings reveal that validity information is not routinely provided in terms of modern validity theory, some sources of validity evidence (e.g., consequential) are essentially ignored in validity reports, and the favorability of judgments about a test is more strongly related to the number of validity sources provided than to the perspective on validity taken or other factors. The article concludes with implications for extending and refining current validity theory and validation practice.

Key Words: validity theory • unitary perspective • consequential validity • validity evidence

This version was published on June 1, 2008

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 68, No. 3, 397-412 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164407310130
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?