Abstract
The concept of test validity has gained importance since psychological tests have been used. Validity is related to the degree of measurement capability of a certain test, which intends to measure a desired property. However, from the years which the concept of validity emerged to the present day debates about definition and classification of validity and the interpretation of its results are on-going. In this study all debates about validity from the past to the present day are examined. Originally the classification of validity was the basis of criterion referenced validity, since then, the basic psychological structure has shifted to be associated with construct validity. In this approach all types of validity were unified under construct validity. Unified validity, as this approach is called, indicates that all evidence for validity of test data revealed construct validity. According to opponents of this view, construct validity, which is more a theoretical study, would not be sufficient to describe the actual validity of the tests used in education. Today their are views defending the unified validity approach as well as views against it and debates about the problems of holding onto content validity under the umbrella of construct validity still continue to this day. At the conclusion of all these debates, it seems that there is consensus that validity is an important evidence gathering process
References
- Anastasi, A. ve Urbina, S. (1988). Psychological testing (7th ed.). USA: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc.
- American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G., ve Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.
- Brennan, R. L. (1998). Misconceptions at the intersection of measurement theory and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 5–9.
- Brennan, R. L. (2013). Commentary on “validating the ınterpretations and uses of test scores”. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 73 – 83.
- Campbell, D. T. ve Fiske D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validition by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), 81 – 105.
- Crocker, L. (2003). Teaching for the test: Validity, fairness, and moral action. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 5–11.
- Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper.
- Cronbach, L. J. ve Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
- Cureton, E. E. (1951).Validity.In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (1st ed., pp. 621-694).Washington, DC:American Council on Education.
- Embretson, S. E. (2007). Construct validity: a universal validity system or just another test evaluation procedure? Educational research, 36, 449.
- Fitzpatrick, A. R. (1983). The meaning of content validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 1, 3-13.
- Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427–439.
- Hopkins, K. D., Stanley, J. ve Hopkins B. R. (1990). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. USA: Prentice Hall.
- Kane, M.T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory, Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319-342.
- Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed), Educational Measurement, (4th ed.,17-64). Westport, CT: Praeger.
- Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1-73.
- Loevinger (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
- Lord, F. M. ve Novick M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. New York: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company.
- Lissitz, W.R. ve Samuelsen, K. (2007a). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education, Educational Researcher, 36(8), 437-448.
- Lissitz, W.R. ve Samuelsen, K. (2007b). Further clarification regarding validity and education, Educational Researcher, 36(8), 482-484.
- Messick, S. (1975). The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist, 30, 955–966.
- Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (33–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., 13–103). New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
- Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
- Murphy, K. R. ve Davidshofer, C. O. (2001). Psychological testing (5th.ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
- Rulon, P. J.(1946). On the validity of educational tests. Harvard Educational Review, 16, 290-296.
- Sireci, S. G. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83-117.
- Sireci, S. G. (2007). On validity theory and test validation. Educational Researcher 36, 477–481.
- Sireci, S. ve Faulkner-Bold, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema 26, 1, 100-107.
- Thorndike R. L.ve Hagen, E. (1961). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education. Newyork: John Wiley and sons.
- Turgut, M. F. ve Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
- Wood, D. A. (1961). Test construction. USA: Charles E. Merrill Books.
Abstract
Psikolojik testler kullanılmaya başlandığından bu yana testler için geçerlik kavramı önem kazanmıştır. Geçerlik, bir testin ölçmek istediği özelliği, testin amacına uygun olarak ölçme derecesi ile ilgilidir. Geçerlik kavramının ortaya çıktığı yıllardan günümüze kadar geçerliğin tanımı, sınıflandırılması, sonuçların yorumlanması üzerine yapılan tartışmalar devam etmektedir. Bu makalede geçmişten günümüze geçerlik ile ilgili yapılan tartışmalar ele alınmıştır. Başlangıçta ölçüt dayanaklı geçerlik temelinde olan geçerlik sınıflamaları, daha sonra psikolojik yapılarla ilişkilendirilerek yapı geçerliği temeline doğru kaymıştır. Bu yaklaşımda tüm geçerlik türleri yapı geçerliği altında birleştirilmiştir. Birleştirilmiş geçerlik olarak adlandırılan bu yaklaşım, testlerin geçerliği için toplanan tüm kanıtların testin yapı geçerliğini ortaya koyacağını belirtmektedir. Bu görüşe karşı çıkanlar ise, daha çok teorik bir çalışma olan yapı geçerliğinin eğitimde kullanılan testlerin geçerliğini tanımlamada yeterli olmayacağını ileri sürmüşlerdir. Günümüzde hem birleştirilmiş geçerlik yaklaşımını savunan hem de buna karşı çıkan görüşler bulunmaktadır ve kapsam geçerliğinin yapı geçerliği altında ele alınmasının yaratacağı sorunlar üzerindeki tartışmalar hala sürmektedir. Ancak nihayetinde geçerliğin bir kanıt toplama süreci olarak ele alınması konusunda uzlaşmaya varıldığı görülmektedir.
References
- Anastasi, A. ve Urbina, S. (1988). Psychological testing (7th ed.). USA: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc.
- American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G., ve Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.
- Brennan, R. L. (1998). Misconceptions at the intersection of measurement theory and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 5–9.
- Brennan, R. L. (2013). Commentary on “validating the ınterpretations and uses of test scores”. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 73 – 83.
- Campbell, D. T. ve Fiske D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validition by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), 81 – 105.
- Crocker, L. (2003). Teaching for the test: Validity, fairness, and moral action. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 5–11.
- Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper.
- Cronbach, L. J. ve Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
- Cureton, E. E. (1951).Validity.In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (1st ed., pp. 621-694).Washington, DC:American Council on Education.
- Embretson, S. E. (2007). Construct validity: a universal validity system or just another test evaluation procedure? Educational research, 36, 449.
- Fitzpatrick, A. R. (1983). The meaning of content validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 1, 3-13.
- Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427–439.
- Hopkins, K. D., Stanley, J. ve Hopkins B. R. (1990). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. USA: Prentice Hall.
- Kane, M.T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory, Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319-342.
- Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed), Educational Measurement, (4th ed.,17-64). Westport, CT: Praeger.
- Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1-73.
- Loevinger (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
- Lord, F. M. ve Novick M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. New York: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company.
- Lissitz, W.R. ve Samuelsen, K. (2007a). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education, Educational Researcher, 36(8), 437-448.
- Lissitz, W.R. ve Samuelsen, K. (2007b). Further clarification regarding validity and education, Educational Researcher, 36(8), 482-484.
- Messick, S. (1975). The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist, 30, 955–966.
- Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (33–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., 13–103). New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
- Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
- Murphy, K. R. ve Davidshofer, C. O. (2001). Psychological testing (5th.ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
- Rulon, P. J.(1946). On the validity of educational tests. Harvard Educational Review, 16, 290-296.
- Sireci, S. G. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83-117.
- Sireci, S. G. (2007). On validity theory and test validation. Educational Researcher 36, 477–481.
- Sireci, S. ve Faulkner-Bold, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema 26, 1, 100-107.
- Thorndike R. L.ve Hagen, E. (1961). Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education. Newyork: John Wiley and sons.
- Turgut, M. F. ve Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
- Wood, D. A. (1961). Test construction. USA: Charles E. Merrill Books.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | April 23, 2014 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2014 Volume: 5 Issue: 2 |