Your search found 8325 results.

Descriptors:
Measurement; Testing; Language Proficiency; Test Construction; Bilingualism; Language Variation; Generalizability Theory; Error of Measurement; Culture Fair Tests; Language Minorities; Second Language Learning; Validity; Scores; English (Second Language)

Abstract:
We discuss generalizability (G) theory and the fair and valid assessment of linguistic minorities, especially emergent bilinguals. G theory allows examination of the relationship between score variation and language variation (e.g., variation of proficiency across languages, language modes, and social contexts). Studies examining score variation across items administered in emergent bilinguals' first and second languages show that the interaction of student and the facets (sources of measurement error) item and language is an important source of score variation. Each item poses a unique set of linguistic challenges in each language, and each emergent bilingual individual has a unique set of strengths and weaknesses in each language. Based on these findings, G theory can inform the process of test construction in large-scale testing programmes and the development of testing models that ensure more valid and fair interpretations of test scores for linguistic minorities. (Contains 2 tables, 3 figures, and 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Student Attitudes; Foreign Countries; Multiple Regression Analysis; Questionnaires; Moral Development; Affective Behavior; Cognitive Development; Measures (Individuals); Science Education; Academic Achievement; Grade 9; High School Students; Validity; Reliability; Teacher Student Relationship; Teacher Behavior

Abstract:
This study validated the Chinese version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) in the Hong Kong context as well as examined the relationship between students' perceptions of interpersonal teacher behaviour and their cognitive, affective and moral learning outcomes. Data were collected with the QTI and four other measures of student learning outcomes including a modified enjoyment scale of the Test of Science Related Attitudes, academic achievement, attitudes towards the teacher, and learning of values and attitudes. A total of 612 grade 9 students from 16 Mathematics, Chinese and English classes in six schools participated in the study. The Chinese version of the QTI was found to be a valid and reliable measure. Multiple regression analysis revealed that students' perceptions of their teachers' interpersonal behaviour were significantly related to their cognitive, affective, and moral learning outcomes. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Evidence; Ethics; Validity; Theories; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Beliefs

Abstract:
According to Kane (this issue), "the validity of a proposed interpretation or use depends on how well the evidence supports" the claims being made. Because truth and evidence are distinct, this means that the validity of a test score interpretation could be high even though the interpretation is false. As an illustration, we discuss the case of phlogiston measurement as it existed in the 18th century. At face value, Kane's theory would seem to imply that interpretations of phlogiston measurement were valid in the 18th century (because the evidence for them was strong), even though amounts of phlogiston do not exist and hence cannot be measured. We suggest that this neglects an important aspect of validity and suggest various ways in which Kane's theory could meet this challenge. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Test Use; Test Interpretation; Scores; Learning; Academic Achievement; Decision Making; Information Utilization; Educational Research; Theories

Abstract:
Studies of data use illuminate ways in which education professionals have used test scores and other evidence relevant to students' learning--in action in their own contexts of work--to make decisions about their practice. These studies raise instructive challenges for a validity theory that focuses on intended interpretations and uses of test scores as Kane's (this issue) does. This commentary explores implications of data use studies for elaborating Kane's approach to validation to accommodate the ways test scores are used with other sources of evidence to address users' questions. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Inferences; Generalization; Test Results; Decision Making; Beliefs; Ethics; Evidence

Abstract:
This response to the comments contains three main sections, each addressing a subset of the comments. In the first section, I will respond to the comments by Brennan, Haertel, and Moss. All of these comments suggest ways in which my presentation could be extended or improved; I generally agree with their suggestions, so my response to their comments is brief. In the second section, I will respond to suggestions by Newton and Sireci that my framework be simplified by employing only one kind of argument, a validity argument, and dropping the interpretation/use argument (IUA); I am sympathetic to their desire for greater simplicity, but I see considerable value in keeping the IUA as a framework for the validation effort and will argue for keeping both the IUA and the validity argument. In the third section, I will respond to Borsboom and Markus, who raise a fundamental objection to my approach to validation, suggesting that I give too much attention to justification and too little to truth as a criterion for validity; I don't accept their proposed conception of validity, and I will indicate why. (Contains 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Test Interpretation; Test Use

Abstract:
Kane distinguishes between two kinds of argument: the interpretation/use argument and the validity argument. This commentary considers whether there really are two kinds of argument, two arguments, or just one. It concludes that there is just one argument: the validity argument. (Contains 2 figures and 5 notes.)

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Test Interpretation; Validity; Scores; Test Use; Test Results; Construct Validity; Content Validity; Generalization; Performance Tests; Item Response Theory; Sampling; Inferences; Reliability; Evidence; Theories

Abstract:
To validate an interpretation or use of test scores is to evaluate the plausibility of the claims based on the scores. An argument-based approach to validation suggests that the claims based on the test scores be outlined as an argument that specifies the inferences and supporting assumptions needed to get from test responses to score-based interpretations and uses. Validation then can be thought of as an evaluation of the coherence and completeness of this interpretation/use argument and of the plausibility of its inferences and assumptions. In outlining the argument-based approach to validation, this paper makes eight general points. First, it is the proposed score interpretations and uses that are validated and not the test or the test scores. Second, the validity of a proposed interpretation or use depends on how well the evidence supports the claims being made. Third, more-ambitious claims require more support than less-ambitious claims. Fourth, more-ambitious claims (e.g., construct interpretations) tend to be more useful than less-ambitious claims, but they are also harder to validate. Fifth, interpretations and uses can change over time in response to new needs and new understandings leading to changes in the evidence needed for validation. Sixth, the evaluation of score uses requires an evaluation of the consequences of the proposed uses; negative consequences can render a score use unacceptable. Seventh, the rejection of a score use does not necessarily invalidate a prior, underlying score interpretation. Eighth, the validation of the score interpretation on which a score use is based does not validate the score use. (Contains 1 figure and 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Testing; Test Results; Test Use; Theories; Social Sciences

Abstract:
In validating uses of testing, it is helpful to distinguish those that rely directly on the information provided by scores or score distributions ("direct" uses and consequences) versus those that instead capitalize on the motivational effects of testing, or use testing and test reporting to shape public opinion ("indirect" uses and consequences). Some uses and consequences, both direct and indirect, are intended; others are unintended. Unintended consequences pose greater challenges in test validation because they must be identified before they can be investigated. Validation of uses and consequences can employ theories and methods from various social science disciplines. Educational measurement is most closely allied with psychology and statistics, but sociologists, anthropologists, economists, linguists, and others also could help in theorizing and investigating the consequences of test use, especially indirect and unintended consequences. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Theories; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Testing; Measurement Objectives

Abstract:
Kane (this issue) presents a comprehensive review of validity theory and reminds us that the focus of validation is on test score interpretations and use. In reacting to his article, I support the argument-based approach to validity and all of the major points regarding validation made by Dr. Kane. In addition, I call for a simpler, three-step method for developing validity arguments, one that focuses on explicit testing purposes, as suggested by the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing". If testing purposes are appropriately articulated, the process of developing an interpretive argument becomes unnecessary and validation can directly address intended interpretations and uses. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Validity; Test Interpretation; Test Use; Scores; Inferences; Scoring; Generalization; Test Results

Abstract:
Kane's paper "Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores" is the most complete and clearest discussion yet available of the argument-based approach to validation. At its most basic level, validation as formulated by Kane is fundamentally a simply-stated two-step enterprise: (1) specify the claims inherent in a particular interpretation and/or use of test scores (IUA); and (2) provide an evaluation of the claims (validity argument). Kane discusses four types of inferences that provide a scaffolding for addressing these two arguments: scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and decision rules. Decision rules, in particular, are closely related to consequences, which loom large in the argument-based approach to validation. The present commentary on Kane's paper attempts to simplify some of his discussions, while expanding others. The author suggests that Kane's argument-based approach to validation offers by far the best current basis for optimism about improvements in validation. (Contains 7 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website