• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Measurement >Validity is an Action Verb: Commentary on: 'Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity'
【24h】

Validity is an Action Verb: Commentary on: 'Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity'

机译：有效性是一个动作动词：评论：“澄清有效性的共识定义”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

We read the article by Paul E. Newton (this issue) and enjoyed it very much. It seems to us to be a very good summary of the consensus on validity, to the extent that a consensus actually exists. As the chapters in Lissitz (2009) indicate, there are in fact serious differences of opinion regarding the topic of validity. Those differences also came out in the special issue on validity in Educational Researcher (see Lissitz & Samuelsen, 2007) and a previous issue of Measurement (2008, Vol. 6, 1-2) on foundational issues in psychological measurement. Newton is certainly aware of these differences, as made clear by his choice of references and particularly his effort to respond to the various Borsboom papers (see the Newton reference list). Beyond some introductory remarks, we would like to limit our brief reactions to three points. The first has to do with Rubin, Stuart, and Zanutto's (2004) emphasis upon theory as a necessary ingredient for more-abstract test validity. This is consistent with the original Cronbach and Meehl (1955) paper and its emphasis on the nomological network that captures the importance of theory inherent to many considerations of validity.
机译：我们阅读了Paul E. Newton的文章（本期），并非常喜欢。在我们看来，这是对有效性共识的一个很好的总结，只要共识确实存在。正如Lissitz（2009）中的章节所指出的那样，实际上在有效性问题上存在着严重的意见分歧。这些差异也出现在关于教育研究人员有效性的特刊（参见Lissitz和Samuelsen，2007）和上一期关于心理测量基础问题的测量（2008，Vol.6，1-2）中。牛顿当然意识到了这些差异，正如他通过选择参考文献，特别是他对各种Borsboom论文的回应所表明的那样（请参阅牛顿参考文献列表），这一点很明显。除了一些介绍性的言论外，我们想将简短的反应限制在三点。第一个与鲁宾，斯图尔特和扎纳托（2004）强调理论作为更抽象的测试有效性的必要组成部分有关。这与最初的Cronbach and Meehl（1955）论文及其对法理网络的强调相吻合，后者体现了许多有效性考虑中固有的理论的重要性。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Measurement》 |2012年第4期|75-79|共5页
  • 作者

    Robert W. Lissitz; Tiago Calico;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Human Development and Quantitative Methodology, University of Maryland, 1229 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742;

    Department of Education University of Maryland;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号