Kontrowersje wokół pojęcia trafności

• Authors: Jolanta Rytel

Title variants

EN

Controversies over the concept of validity

Abstracts

EN

In the article the key changes which have occurred in conceptualization of validity are considered. Validity is currently defined in term of the degree to which a proposed interpretation of test scores is justified by evidence and theory (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education [AERA, APA, NCME], 2007, p. 31). Five types of validity evidence are described, and problems with the integrations of various strands of evidence in sound validity argument are discussed. Usefulness of Kane’s argument-based approach to validity referring to informal logic and the structure of the argument introduced by Toulmin is stressed in the article. There is also emphasized the lack of uncontroversial definition of validity.  

PL

W artykule zrelacjonowano zmieniające się na przestrzeni ponad 100 lat koncepcje pojęcia trafności pomiaru testowego. Aktualnie pojęcie trafności odnosi się do stopnia, w jakim dane empiryczne oraz teoria uzasadniają interpretację wyników testowych w zakładanym kierunku (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education [AERA, APA, NCME], 2007, s. 31). Przedstawiono 5 podstawowych źródeł danych dotyczących trafności oraz problemy związane z integracją dowodów na rzecz trafności w spójną argumentację. Podkreślono użyteczność zaproponowanego przez Kane’a podejścia do walidacji opartego na argumentacji, odwołującego się do logiki nieformalnej i struktury argumentu wprowadzonej przez Toulmina. Omówiono także różnice stanowisk zajmowanych przez badaczy w odniesieniu do 2 podstawowych kwestii: czemu przysługuje trafność i jaki jest właściwy sposób jej ustalania?  

Keywords

PL

trafność; pomiar psychologiczny; standardy stosowania testów psychologicznych

EN

validity; psychological measurement; testing standards

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
• Journal: Studia Psychologica
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 21
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 49-63

Dates

published

2021

Contributors

author

Jolanta Rytel

• Instytut Psychologii, Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie

• https://orcid.org/0000000292447592

References

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (2007). Standardy dla testów stosowanych w psychologii i pedagogice. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (2014).
• Standards for educational and psychological testing [wersja Adobe Digital Edition]. Pobrane z: https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/standards_2014edition.pdf
• Anastasi, A., Urbina, S. (1999). Testy psychologiczne. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
• Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: an evolving concept. W: H. Wainer, H. Braun (red.), Test validity (s. 19–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrica, 71, 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6
• Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
• Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., Kievit, R. A., Scholten, A. Z., Franic, S. (2009). The end of construct validity. W: R. Lissitz (red.), The concept of validity. Revisions, new directions, and applications (s. 135–170). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
• Campbell, D. T., Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
• Camargo, S. L., Herrera, A. N., Traynor, A. (2018). Looking for a consensus in the discussion about the concept of validity: a Delphi study. Methodology, 14, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000157
• Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00165.x
• Cizek, G. J. (2012). Defining and distinguishing validity: interpretations of score meaning and justifications of test use. Psychological Methods, 17, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026975
• Cizek, G. J. (2016). Validating test score meaning and defending test score use: different aims, different methods. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23, 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1063479
• Cizek, G. J. (2020). Validity: an integrated approach to test score meaning and use. Nowy Jork, NY: Routledge.
• Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S., Koons, H. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410379323
• Cizek, G. J., Bowen, D., Church, K. (2010). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests: a follow-up study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407310130
• Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. W: R. L. Thorndike (red.), Educational measurement (wyd. 2, s. 443–507). Waszyngton, DC: American Council on Education.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. W: H. Wainer, H. Braun (red.), Test validity (s. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Cronbach, L. J., Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological test. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
• Dorans, N. J., Holland, P. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenzel and standardization. W: P. W. Holland, H. Wainer (red.), Differential item functioning (s. 35–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Fremer, J. (2000). Promoting high standards and the „problem” with construct validation. NCME Newsletter, 8(3), 1.
• Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316444600600401
• Guion, R. M. (1978). „Content validity” in moderation. Personnel Psychology, 31, 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb00440.x
• Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527
• Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x
• Kane, M. T. (2004). Certification testing as a illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement, 2, 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0203_1
• Kane, M. T. (2006a). Content-related validity evidence in test development. W: S. M. Downing, T. M. Haladyna (red.), Handbook of test development (s. 115–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kane, M. T. (2006b). Validation. W: R. L. Brennan (red.), Educational measurement (wyd. 4, s. 17–64). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
• Kane, M. T. (2008). Terminology, emphasis, and utility in validation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08315390
• Kane, M. T. (2009). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. W: R. Lissitz (red.), The concept of validity. Revisions, new directions, and applications (s. 39–64). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
• Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores’. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
• Kane, M. T. (2016). Explicating validity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1060192
• Lissitz, R. W., Samuelsen, K. (2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher,36, 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07311286
• Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, Monograph Supplement, 3, 635–694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635
• Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. W: R. L. Linn (red.), Educational measurement (s. 13–103). Nowy Jork, NY: American Counsil on Education and Macmillan.
• Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. Validation of inferences of persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
• Murphy, K. R. (2009). Content validation is useful for many things, but validity isn’t one of them. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01173.x
• Newton, P. E., Shaw, S. D. (2013). Standards for talking and thinking about validity. Psychological Methods, 18, 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032969
• Newton, P. E., Shaw, S. D. (2016). Disagreement over the best way to use the word ‘validity’ and options for reaching consensus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23, 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1037241
• Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529
• Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
• Sireci, S. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83–117. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006985528729
• Sireci, S. (2009). Packing and unpacking sources of validity evidence: History repeats itself again. W: R. Lissitz (red.), The concept of validity. Revisions, new directions, and applications (s. 19–37). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
• Spies, R. A., Plake, B. S. (red.). (2005). The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832
• Wolming, S., Wikström, C. (2010). The concept of validity in theory and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695941003693856

Identifiers

DOI

10.21697/sp.2021.21.1.03

Biblioteka Nauki

1879454