Week 4 – Models using the interpretive validity argument
Toulmin model
Fact/data = observed performance (part of the interpretive argument).
Claim = interpretation of the fact (part of the interpretive argument).
Warrant = argumentation that connects the fact to the claim (part of the interpretive argument).
Backing = evidence for the warrant (part of the validity argument).
Rebuttal = exemptions on the claim and its warrants (part of the validity argument).
Qualifier = overall quality of the reasoning.
Kane Olivieri/Mislevy Pellegrino
Performance > score – scoring Domain analysis – determining Analysing the cognitive domain
constructs
Score > test domain - Domain modelling – Specifying the constructs to be
generalisation operationalising the constructs assessed
Test domain > competence Conceptual assessment Conceptual assessment
domain – extrapolation framework (CAF) – assessment framework (CAF) – assessment
blueprint blueprint
> Student models = proficiency > Claim space = what should
variables (true score) students know and how
> Evidence models = > Evidence = what provides
performances that provide evidence and how to interpret
evidence of the proficiencies the evidence
> Task models = how to elicit > Task = what task are used to
those performances communicate knowledge
Competence domain > practice Assessment implementation –
domain – extrapolation designing the assessment (not
discussed in the paper)
Practice domain > certification Assessment delivery –
decision – interpretation administering the assessment
(not discussed in the paper)
Grey: steps in which the Toulmin model is used.
Toulmin model
Fact/data = observed performance (part of the interpretive argument).
Claim = interpretation of the fact (part of the interpretive argument).
Warrant = argumentation that connects the fact to the claim (part of the interpretive argument).
Backing = evidence for the warrant (part of the validity argument).
Rebuttal = exemptions on the claim and its warrants (part of the validity argument).
Qualifier = overall quality of the reasoning.
Kane Olivieri/Mislevy Pellegrino
Performance > score – scoring Domain analysis – determining Analysing the cognitive domain
constructs
Score > test domain - Domain modelling – Specifying the constructs to be
generalisation operationalising the constructs assessed
Test domain > competence Conceptual assessment Conceptual assessment
domain – extrapolation framework (CAF) – assessment framework (CAF) – assessment
blueprint blueprint
> Student models = proficiency > Claim space = what should
variables (true score) students know and how
> Evidence models = > Evidence = what provides
performances that provide evidence and how to interpret
evidence of the proficiencies the evidence
> Task models = how to elicit > Task = what task are used to
those performances communicate knowledge
Competence domain > practice Assessment implementation –
domain – extrapolation designing the assessment (not
discussed in the paper)
Practice domain > certification Assessment delivery –
decision – interpretation administering the assessment
(not discussed in the paper)
Grey: steps in which the Toulmin model is used.
