Search

Evaluating the multiple characteristics of alignment has taken a prominent role in educational assessment and accountability systems given its attention in the No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB). Leading to this rise in popularity, alignment methodologies that examined relationships among curriculum, academic content standards, instruction, and assessments were proposed as strategies to evaluate evidence of the intended uses and interpretations of test scores. In this article, we propose a framework for evaluating alignment studies based on similar concepts that have been recommended for standard setting (Kane). This framework provides guidance to practitioners about how to identify sources of validity evidence for an alignment study and make judgments about the strength of the evidence that may impact the interpretation of the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's view on an article by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment in the U.S. He comments on Newton's argument on test validity theory and test score interpretations and discusses the issues concerning the implications for the scientific validity conceptions. He also looks at the importance of the test validity and its psychometric concept for measurement interpretations.

The article presents the author's view on an analysis by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment (EPMA) and the shared responsibility of EPMA professionals and users in ensuring its validity in the U.S. He explores various situations in education to seek clarity in test validity, functions, and interpretation. He also looks at the factors involved in assessment including teachers, test providers, and users of the test outcomes.

This study explores the predictive validity of GMAT® scores for predicting performance in graduate management programs outside the United States. Results suggest that the validity estimates based on the combination of GMAT® scores were about a third of a standard deviation higher for non-U.S. programs compared with existing data on U.S. programs. There also appeared to be differences for separate GMAT® sections such that verbal and writing scores had higher validity estimates for non-U.S. programs, but the validity estimates for quantitative scores were higher for U.S. programs. By meta-analytically combining data for more than 1,200 cases across six Western European programs, this study was able to explore the predictive validity of GMAT® scores for students with differing backgrounds, including gender, educational background, native language, and citizenship. The analyses show that predictive validity differences among groups have only a small impact on academic performance measured by grades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]