Esquema conceptual y procedimientos para analizar la validez de las consecuencias del uso de los test.

  1. Padilla García, José Luis
  2. Gómez Benito, Juana
  3. Hidalgo Montesinos, María Dolores
  4. Muñiz Fernández, José 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Oviedo
    info

    Universidad de Oviedo

    Oviedo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/006gksa02

Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Año de publicación: 2007

Volumen: 19

Número: 1

Páginas: 173-178

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

El esquema de validación basado en argumentos orienta la evaluación de las consecuencias del uso de los tests. La distinción entre inferencias semánticas e inferencias políticas permite integrar la validación de las consecuencias en un esquema único de validación. El proceso de validación debe aportar evidencias sobre los supuestos que sostienen ambos tipos de inferencias. Tras presentar el esquema de validación, se ejemplifica su utilización a través de la evaluación del uso de los tests en dos aplicaciones: el uso de tests de alto riesgo en el contexto educativo y la validación de las adaptaciones para personas con discapacidades en los tests estandarizados. Por último, se proponen procedimientos para la validación de las consecuencias y se discute la relevancia del esquema de validación basado en argumentos para la validación de las consecuencias del uso de los tests en el contexto español

Referencias bibliográficas

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association y National Council on Measurement in Education (1999).Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washinton, DC:American Psychological Association.
  • Camilli, G. (2003). Comment on Cizek’s «More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing». Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21,36-39.
  • Casillas, A., y Robbins, S.B. (2005). Test adaptation and cross-cultural assessment from a business perspective: Issues and recommendations. International Journal of Testing, 5, 5-21.
  • Cizek, G.J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20,19-27.
  • Crocker, L. (1997). Editorial: The great validity debate. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 4
  • Cronbach, L.J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. En H. Wainer y H.I. Braun (eds.): Test validity. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Green, D.R. (1998). Consequential aspects of the validity of achievement tests: A publisher’s point of view. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 16-20
  • European Federation of Psychologist’ Associations y European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (2005). European Test User Standards for Test Use in Work and Organizational Setting. Disponible en la web: http://www.efpa.be/
  • Haladyna, T.M., y Downing, S.M. (2004). Construct irrelevant variances inhigh-stake testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22,17-27.
  • Kane, M. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
  • Kane, M. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342.
  • Kane, M. (2002). Validiting high-stakes testing programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21, 31-41.
  • Lane, S., y Stone, C.A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21, 23-30.
  • Mehrens, W. (1997). The consequences of consequential validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 16-19.
  • Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35-44.
  • Moss, P.A. (2003). Reconceptualizing validity for classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 13-25.
  • Muñiz, J. (2003). La validación de los tests. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 5, 119-139.
  • Nguyen, H.D., O’Neil, A., y Ryan, A.M. (2003). Relating test-taking attitudes and skill and stereotypes threat effects to racial gap in cognitiveability test performance. Human Performance, 16,261-293.
  • Ouimet, J.A., Bunnage, J.C., Karini, R.M., Khu, G.D., y Kennedy, J.(2004).Using focus group, expert advice, cognitive interviews to establish the validity of a college student survey. Research in Higher Education, 45,233-250.
  • Padilla, J.L., Gómez, J., Hidalgo, M.D., y Muñiz, J. (2006). La evaluación de las consecuencias del uso de los tests en la teoría de la validez. Psicothema, 18,307-312.
  • Padilla, J.L., Gómez, J., y Muñiz, J. (2006). Assessment of overlap in construct by means of cognitive interview. Paper presented in 5th Conference of International Test Commission. Bruselas, Bélgica.
  • Pitoniak, M., y Royer, J. (2001). Testing accommodation for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71,53-104.
  • Presser, S., Rothger, J.M., Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E., Martin,J., y Singer, E. (eds.) (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Reckase, M.D. (1998). Consequential validity from the test developer’s perspective. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 13-16.
  • Sireci, S.G. (2004). Validity issues in accommodation NAEP reading test (Center for Educational Assessment Research Rep. No. 515). Amherst,MA: School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  • Sireci, S.G. (2005). Unlabeling the disabled: A perspective on flagging scores from accommodated test administrations. Educational Research, 31,3-11.
  • Sireci, S.G. (2006). Test accommodations and test validity: Issues, research findings and unanswered questions. Paper presented in the Annual Meeting of National Center on Educational Outcomes Teleconference.
  • Sireci, S.G., Li, S., y Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of literature (Center for Educational Assessment Research Rep. No. 485). Amherst, MA: School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet