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 views on the issues related to the consensus definition of validity in educational and psychological measurement and assessment in the U.S. in response to the commentaries to his focus article within the issue. He identifies important arguments involved in test validity, concepts, and interpretations in light of his proposed clarifications of the consensus definition. He also notes the conceptual and practical difficulties in the iteration of validity theory.

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 focuses on the issues identified by Newton in the clarifications of the inconsistencies in test validity and measurement interpretations in an open discourse. He also looks at the conceptual and practical difficulties in defining and measuring validity and the consequences of the idea of binary procedural validation.

The article presents the author's view on the article "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity," by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment in the context of informal argument in the U.S. He argues that the concepts of evidentiary reasoning and informal argument address the issues identified by Newton. He also notes his disagreement with the idea of defining validity as a binary judgment to justify interpretations.

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 the issue of concept validity in the context of test employment and measurement interpretation and the lack of consistency and clarity in the test validity theory. He also notes the idea of the concept construct and the distinction between the concept and the referent in measuring validity.

The author discusses an article by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment in relation to a depression questionnaire in the U.S. She looks at Newton's proposed clarification of the definition of validity and its association with the measurements of attributes in the psychological network context. She argues that a depression questionnaire does not measure a depression attribute but it assesses the degree of cognitive activation.

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 (EPMA) in the U.S. He commends Newton for his efforts to address the issues concerning the clarification and precision in the concept of test validity. He looks at the inherent difficulties of the constructs and attributes in test validity and the standards of EPMA argumentation, evidence rules, and procedural validation practice.

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 the idea of the problematic concept of construct validity to provide clarity in the consensus definition of test validity and its role in assessment. He also notes the methods of theory validation and suggests that efforts to clarify the definition of validity should be considered based on theory validation.

The author discusses an article by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment in the U.S. She looks at Newton's proposed changes to the consensus definition of test validity based on a representational measurement theory. She also comments on the concept involved in definition and the meaning of construct validity in the context of evidence-based approach to test interpretations and outcomes uses.

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 explores the aspects of Newton's arguments on the consensus definition of test validity including the role of scientific definitions, the role of validation constructs, and the distinction between test score interpretations and uses. He also looks at the idea of construct validity relating to psychological attributes.

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. She looks at the consequences of educational assessment and accountability systems in relation to the argument-based approach to test validity and interpretation. She also notes the importance of examining the effects of test validity on the improvement of student learning and school instruction.

The article presents the authors' view on an article by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment in the U.S. They comment on the notion of epistemic iterations in evaluating development in defining the validity concept. They also look at the aspects of a consensus definition of test validity identified by Newton to provide clarifications and its implications for measurement interpretations and procedural validity practice.

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 author discusses 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 the aspects of Newton's assertions including the distinction between constructs and attributes in validity, the conceptual link between a decision and an attribute, and the rejection of validity and validation. He also notes the difficulties in measuring attributes entailed by a decision based on test interpretations and uses.

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 (EPMA) in the U.S. He comments on the measurement concept involved in defining test validity, the meaning of construct, and the viability of imposing validity definition. He suggests that more clarity on the use of the term construct in assessment validity is needed to promote better EPMA professional discourse and validation practice.

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.

The authors discuss an article by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment in the U.S. They provide an applied perspective related to the proposed changes to the definition of validity, the issues and implications for validity research studies, and the development in test validation practice. They also look at the issues concerning the validity of interpretations and uses of test outcomes to promote validation consistency.

The authors discuss the article "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity," by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment in the U.S. They comment on the test theory as a factor in abstract-test validity, the implications of the evidence-centered design work in test interpretation and uses, and the variation between reliability and validity. They also note the need for adequate actions in justifying test interpretations.

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]

The author discusses the article "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity," by Paul E. Newton which examines the validity of the educational and psychological measurement and assessment in the U.S. He comments on the issues identified by Newton about the concept and definition of validity and how validation should be discussed and understood. He also looks at the consequences in defining and measuring validity in the context of interpretive argument and test interpretations.

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 explores the reasons for the rejection of the instrument-based approach to test validity based on differential measurement quality. He also notes the issues of the conceptions in the consensus definition of validity and the implications for measurement interpretations and uses.

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 the concept of validity and the implications of Newton's proposal to change the definition of validity. He also discusses the issue of oversimplification in the proposed definition of validity in relation to the different inferences about the constructs and attributes in test interpretations and uses.