Samenvatting Psychodiagnostiek
(wegens problemen met het samenvoegen staat Taak 1 aan het einde van het
document )
Taak 2:
Kaplan – Validity:
There must be evidence that a test has meaning in general, but also there must
be evidence that it has validity fort he particular situation in which it is applied.
Evidence for validity comes from showing the association between the test and
other variables.
Defining validity:
Validity can be defined as the agreement between a test score or measure and
the quality it is believed to measure defined as the answer to the question:
‘Does the test measure what it is supposed to measure?’.
Many subcategories of validity were created because of which the definition of
validity blossomed and it was hard to determine whether psychologists referred
to different things The joint committee (APA; AERA; NCME) developed
Standards providing a sensible set of psychological test guidelines.
The joint committee suggested the following definition: Validity is the evidence
for inferences made about a test score.
Three types of evidence:
Construct-related (predictive validity)
Criterion-related (criterion validity)
Content-related (content validity)
The most recent standards emphasize that validity is a unitary concept that
represents all of the evidence that supports the intended interpretation of a
measure. It cautions against separating validity into subcategories. The use of
categories does not imply that there are distinct forms of validity. The categories
overlap.
Er zijn twee belangrijke functies van validiteit te onderscheiden. De eerste functie
is predictie, de validiteit zegt dus iets over de mate waarin met de testscore
voorspellingen gedaan kunnen worden van gedrag of prestatie buiten de
testsituatie. De tweede functie is descriptie. Het is van belang te kijken naar
theoretische begrip zelf, waarmee men een verklaring kan geven van testgedrag.
Aspects of Validity:
Face validity refused to be recognized as a legitamte category by the joint
committee, because it is not technically a form of validity. However, the term is
often used in testing literature.
Face validity = the mere appearance that a measure has validity. It is often said
that a test had face validity if the items seen to be reasonably related to the
perceived purpose of the test.
, For example: a scale to measure anxiety might include items such as ‘My
stomach gets upset when I think about taking tests’.
On the basis of positive responses to these items, can we conclude that the
person is anxious?
Validity requires evidence in order to justify conclusions. In this case, we can
only conclude that the person answers the items in a particular way. If we want to
conclude that the person has a problem with anxiety, then we need systematic
evidence that shows how responses to these items relate to the psychological
condition of anxiety.
Face validity is not validity as all because it does not offer evidence to support
conclusions drawn from test scores.
However, it is not argued that face validity is not important since there are
settings in which it is crucial to have a test that ‘looks like’ it is valid can
motivate test takers because they can see that the test is relevant.
Content-related Evidence for validity:
Content-related evidence for validity of a test considers the adequacy of
representation of the conceptual domain the test is designed to cover (e.g.
correspondence between items on the test and information in the course).
Content validity evidence has been of greates concern in educational testing.
Many factors such as the sampling of items and characteristics of items (e.g.
vocabulary) can limit performance on a test making the inferences about your
knowledge less valid.
Is de test een representatieve afspiegeling van het kennisdomein? De
volledigheid van de test speelt hierbij dus een rol.
Voorbeeld: als men lees vaardigheid wilt onderzoeken moet de test het
begrijpen van vocabulary in een context, literal comprehension of content and
drawing correct interfernces from the given info toetsen
Dit is dus vooral een bruikbaar concept wanneer er veel bekend is over de trait
die de onderzoeker graag wil meten. Daarbij moet gespecificeerd worden welke
antwoordmogelijkheden er zijn (vb bij spellingvaardigheid; verbaal vs schriftelijk).
De inhoudsvaliditeit wordt vaak verlaagd doordat niet alle onderdelen van het
domein in de test terug te vinden zijn, zoals in het plaatje is weergegeven. De
inhoudsvaliditeit is te verhogen door alle onderdelen van het domein goed te
beschrijven
Because the boundaries between content and other types of evidence for validity
are not clearly defined, we no longer think of content validty as something
separate from other types of validity evidence. However, content validity offerst
the unique feature that it is the only type of evidence besides face validity that is
logical rather than statistical.
In looking for content validity evidence: ask if the items are a fair sample of the
total potential content, content of the items must be carefully evaluated e.g.
wording of the items.
Determination of content validity is often made by expert judgment; multiple
judges rate each item in terms of its match or relevance to the content.
Statistical methods such as factor analysis have also been used to determine if
items fit into the domain.
Two concepts relevant to content validity evidence:
(wegens problemen met het samenvoegen staat Taak 1 aan het einde van het
document )
Taak 2:
Kaplan – Validity:
There must be evidence that a test has meaning in general, but also there must
be evidence that it has validity fort he particular situation in which it is applied.
Evidence for validity comes from showing the association between the test and
other variables.
Defining validity:
Validity can be defined as the agreement between a test score or measure and
the quality it is believed to measure defined as the answer to the question:
‘Does the test measure what it is supposed to measure?’.
Many subcategories of validity were created because of which the definition of
validity blossomed and it was hard to determine whether psychologists referred
to different things The joint committee (APA; AERA; NCME) developed
Standards providing a sensible set of psychological test guidelines.
The joint committee suggested the following definition: Validity is the evidence
for inferences made about a test score.
Three types of evidence:
Construct-related (predictive validity)
Criterion-related (criterion validity)
Content-related (content validity)
The most recent standards emphasize that validity is a unitary concept that
represents all of the evidence that supports the intended interpretation of a
measure. It cautions against separating validity into subcategories. The use of
categories does not imply that there are distinct forms of validity. The categories
overlap.
Er zijn twee belangrijke functies van validiteit te onderscheiden. De eerste functie
is predictie, de validiteit zegt dus iets over de mate waarin met de testscore
voorspellingen gedaan kunnen worden van gedrag of prestatie buiten de
testsituatie. De tweede functie is descriptie. Het is van belang te kijken naar
theoretische begrip zelf, waarmee men een verklaring kan geven van testgedrag.
Aspects of Validity:
Face validity refused to be recognized as a legitamte category by the joint
committee, because it is not technically a form of validity. However, the term is
often used in testing literature.
Face validity = the mere appearance that a measure has validity. It is often said
that a test had face validity if the items seen to be reasonably related to the
perceived purpose of the test.
, For example: a scale to measure anxiety might include items such as ‘My
stomach gets upset when I think about taking tests’.
On the basis of positive responses to these items, can we conclude that the
person is anxious?
Validity requires evidence in order to justify conclusions. In this case, we can
only conclude that the person answers the items in a particular way. If we want to
conclude that the person has a problem with anxiety, then we need systematic
evidence that shows how responses to these items relate to the psychological
condition of anxiety.
Face validity is not validity as all because it does not offer evidence to support
conclusions drawn from test scores.
However, it is not argued that face validity is not important since there are
settings in which it is crucial to have a test that ‘looks like’ it is valid can
motivate test takers because they can see that the test is relevant.
Content-related Evidence for validity:
Content-related evidence for validity of a test considers the adequacy of
representation of the conceptual domain the test is designed to cover (e.g.
correspondence between items on the test and information in the course).
Content validity evidence has been of greates concern in educational testing.
Many factors such as the sampling of items and characteristics of items (e.g.
vocabulary) can limit performance on a test making the inferences about your
knowledge less valid.
Is de test een representatieve afspiegeling van het kennisdomein? De
volledigheid van de test speelt hierbij dus een rol.
Voorbeeld: als men lees vaardigheid wilt onderzoeken moet de test het
begrijpen van vocabulary in een context, literal comprehension of content and
drawing correct interfernces from the given info toetsen
Dit is dus vooral een bruikbaar concept wanneer er veel bekend is over de trait
die de onderzoeker graag wil meten. Daarbij moet gespecificeerd worden welke
antwoordmogelijkheden er zijn (vb bij spellingvaardigheid; verbaal vs schriftelijk).
De inhoudsvaliditeit wordt vaak verlaagd doordat niet alle onderdelen van het
domein in de test terug te vinden zijn, zoals in het plaatje is weergegeven. De
inhoudsvaliditeit is te verhogen door alle onderdelen van het domein goed te
beschrijven
Because the boundaries between content and other types of evidence for validity
are not clearly defined, we no longer think of content validty as something
separate from other types of validity evidence. However, content validity offerst
the unique feature that it is the only type of evidence besides face validity that is
logical rather than statistical.
In looking for content validity evidence: ask if the items are a fair sample of the
total potential content, content of the items must be carefully evaluated e.g.
wording of the items.
Determination of content validity is often made by expert judgment; multiple
judges rate each item in terms of its match or relevance to the content.
Statistical methods such as factor analysis have also been used to determine if
items fit into the domain.
Two concepts relevant to content validity evidence:
