Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.

Standards for educational and psychological testing

The traditional conception of validity divides it into three separate and substitutable types—namely, content, criterion, and construct validities. This view is fragmented and incomplete, especially because it fails to take into account both evidence of the value implications of score meaning as a basis for action and the social consequences of score use. The new unified concept of validity interrelates these issues as fundamental aspects of a more comprehensive theory of construct validity that addresses both score meaning and social values in test interpretation and test use. That is, unified validity integrates considerations of content, criteria, and consequences into a construct framework for the empirical testing of rational hypotheses about score meaning and theoretically relevant relationships, including those of an applied and a scientific nature. Six distinguishable aspects of construct validity are highlighted as a means of addressing central issues implicit in the notion of validity as a unified concept. These are content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential aspects of construct validity. In effect, these six aspects function as general validity criteria or standards for all educational and psychological measurement, including performance assessments, which are discussed in some detail because of their increasing emphasis in educational and employment settings.

/pdf/validity-of-psychological-assessment-validation-of-2zgxanmue5.pdf

Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons' Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.

Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Pp. viii, 282. £3·50, paperback £1. 1970. (Cambridge University Press.)

ContextCurrent assessment formats for physicians and trainees reliably test
core knowledge and basic skills. However, they may underemphasize some important
domains of professional medical practice, including interpersonal skills,
lifelong learning, professionalism, and integration of core knowledge into
clinical practice.ObjectivesTo propose a definition of professional competence, to review current
means for assessing it, and to suggest new approaches to assessment.Data SourcesWe searched the MEDLINE database from 1966 to 2001 and reference lists
of relevant articles for English-language studies of reliability or validity
of measures of competence of physicians, medical students, and residents.Study SelectionWe excluded articles of a purely descriptive nature, duplicate reports,
reviews, and opinions and position statements, which yielded 195 relevant
citations.Data ExtractionData were abstracted by 1 of us (R.M.E.). Quality criteria for inclusion
were broad, given the heterogeneity of interventions, complexity of outcome
measures, and paucity of randomized or longitudinal study designs.Data SynthesisWe generated an inclusive definition of competence: the habitual and
judicious use of communication, knowledge, technical skills, clinical reasoning,
emotions, values, and reflection in daily practice for the benefit of the
individual and the community being served. Aside from protecting the public
and limiting access to advanced training, assessments should foster habits
of learning and self-reflection and drive institutional change. Subjective,
multiple-choice, and standardized patient assessments, although reliable,
underemphasize important domains of professional competence: integration of
knowledge and skills, context of care, information management, teamwork, health
systems, and patient-physician relationships. Few assessments observe trainees
in real-life situations, incorporate the perspectives of peers and patients,
or use measures that predict clinical outcomes.ConclusionsIn addition to assessments of basic skills, new formats that assess
clinical reasoning, expert judgment, management of ambiguity, professionalism,
time management, learning strategies, and teamwork promise a multidimensional
assessment while maintaining adequate reliability and validity. Institutional
support, reflection, and mentoring must accompany the development of assessment
programs.

/pdf/defining-and-assessing-professional-competence-1sy606vpxu.pdf

Defining and Assessing Professional Competence

The CEFR Companion volume broadens the scope of language education. It reflects academic and societal developments since the publication of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and updates the 2001 version. It owes much to the contributions of members of the language teaching profession across Europe and beyond. This volume contains: ? an explanation of the key aspects of the CEFR for teaching and learning; ? a complete set of updated CEFR descriptors that replaces the 2001 set with: modality-inclusive and gender-neutral descriptors; added detail on listening and reading; a new Pre–A1 level, plus enriched description at A1 and C levels; a replacement scale for phonological competence; new scales for mediation, online interaction and plurilingual/pluricultural competence; new scales for sign language competence; ? a short report on the four-year development, validation and consultation processes. The CEFR Companion volume represents another step in a process of engagement with language education that has been pursued by the Council of Europe since 1971 and which seeks to: ? promote and support the learning and teaching of modern languages; ? enhance intercultural dialogue, and thus mutual understanding, social cohesion and democracy; ? protect linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe; and ? promote the right to quality education for all.

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment

To validate an interpretation or use of test scores is to evaluate the plausibility of the claims based on the scores. An argument-based approach to validation suggests that the claims based on the test scores be outlined as an argument that specifies the inferences and supporting assumptions needed to get from test responses to score-based interpretations and uses. Validation then can be thought of as an evaluation of the coherence and completeness of this interpretation/use argument and of the plausibility of its inferences and assumptions. In outlining the argument-based approach to validation, this paper makes eight general points. First, it is the proposed score interpretations and uses that are validated and not the test or the test scores. Second, the validity of a proposed interpretation or use depends on how well the evidence supports the claims being made. Third, more-ambitious claims require more support than less-ambitious claims. Fourth, more-ambitious claims (e.g., construct interpretations) tend to be more useful than less-ambitious claims, but they are also harder to validate. Fifth, interpretations and uses can change over time in response to new needs and new understandings leading to changes in the evidence needed for validation. Sixth, the evaluation of score uses requires an evaluation of the consequences of the proposed uses; negative consequences can render a score use unacceptable. Seventh, the rejection of a score use does not necessarily invalidate a prior, underlying score interpretation. Eighth, the validation of the score interpretation on which a score use is based does not validate the score use.

Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores

This article outlines a general, argument-based approach to validation, develops an interpretive argument for a placement test as an example, and examines some key properties of interpretive arguments. Validity is associated with the interpretation assigned to test scores rather than with the test s

An argument-based approach to validity.

We are at the end of the first century of work on models of educational and psychological measurement and into a new millennium. This certainly seems like an appropriate time for looking backward and looking forward in assessment. Furthermore, a new edition of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999) has been published, and the previous editions of the Standards have served as benchmarks in the development of measurement theory.

This backward glance will be just that, a glance. After a brief historical review focusing mainly on construct validity, the current state of validity theory will be summarized, with an emphasis on the role of arguments in validation. Then how an argument-based approach might be applied will be examined in regards to two issues in validity theory: the distinction between performance-based and theory-based interpretations, and the role of consequences in validation.

/pdf/current-concerns-in-validity-theory-29dsus12ui.pdf

Current Concerns in Validity Theory

The validity of test-based decisions about readiness for a course or a profession depends on the appropriateness of the passing scores used to make the decisions. The interpretation of passing scores, based on judgments about items or examinees, in terms of some standard of performance depends on two assumptions: (a) that the passing score corresponds to the specified performance standard, in the sense that examinees with scores above the passing score are likely to meet the standard and examinees with scores below the passing score are not likely to meet the standard, and (b) that the specified performance standard is reasonable given the purpose of the decision. These two assumptions can be evaluated in terms of the match between the procedures used to set the passing scores and the purpose of the decision, the internal consistency of the results, and comparisons to external criteria. The sources of error in the passing score can be identified by examining these two assumptions.

Validating the Performance Standards Associated With Passing Scores

How can the validity of performance assessments be established? What type of logical argumentation is necessary to generalize from a particular assessment to the ability or abilities of interest?

Michael T. Kane

Papers

Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores

An argument-based approach to validity.

Current Concerns in Validity Theory

Validating the Performance Standards Associated With Passing Scores

Validating Measures of Performance