首页> 外文期刊>Educational and Psychological Measurement >Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests: A follow-up study
【24h】

Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests: A follow-up study

机译:教育和心理测试有效性证据的来源:后续研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This study followed up on previous work that examined the incidence of reporting evidence based on test consequences in Mental Measurements Yearbook. In the present study, additional possible outlets for what has been called "consequential validity" evidence were investigated, including all articles published in the past 10 years in several applied journals devoted to educational assessment and educational policy, and all presentations at recent annual meetings for the three organizations that sponsor the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education). Consistent with previous findings, consequences of testing as a source of validity evidence is essentially nonexistent in the professional literature and applied measurement and policy work. The article concludes with implications of these findings for extending and refining current validity theory and validation practice.
机译:这项研究是对先前工作的跟踪,该工作根据《心理测量年鉴》中的测试结果检查了报告证据的发生率。在本研究中,调查了所谓的“间接有效性”证据的其他可能来源,包括过去十年中在几本专门用于教育评估和教育政策的应用期刊上发表的所有文章,以及在最近的年度会议上的所有演讲。赞助教育和心理测试标准的三个组织(美国教育研究协会,美国心理协会和国家教育计量委员会)。与以前的发现一致,作为有效性证据来源的测试结果在专业文献以及应用的测量和政策工作中基本上不存在。本文最后总结了这些发现,以扩展和完善当前的有效性理论和验证实践。

著录项

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