r a test is to be interpreted as a measure ofsome attribute or quality which is not"operationally defined."The problem faced by the
investigator is,"What constructs account for variance in test performance?"Construct
validity calls for no new scientific approach.Much current research on tests ofpersonality(9)is construct validation,usually without the benefit of a clear formulation ofthis process.Construct validity is not to be identified solely by particular investigative procedures,but
by the orientation of the investigator.Criterion-oriented validity,as Bechtoldtemphasizes(3,p.1245),"involves the acceptance of a set of operations as anadequate definition of whatever is to be measured."When an investigator believes thatno criterion available to him is fully valid,he perforce becomes interested in constructvalidity because this is the only way to avoid the"infinite frustration"of relating every
criterion to some more ultimate standard(21).Incontentvalidation,acceptance of theuniverse of content as defining the variable to be measured is essential.Constructvalidity must be investigated whenever no criterion or universe of content is accepted asentirely adequate to define the quality to be measured.Determining what psychologicalconstructs account for test performance is desirable for almost any test.Thus,althoughthe MMPI was originally established on the basis of empirical discrimination betweenpatient groups and so-called normals(concurrent validity),continuingresearch has tried
to provide a basis for describing the personality associated with each score pattern.Such interpretations permit the clinician to predict performance with respect to criteriawhich have not yet been employed in empirical validation studies(cf.46,pp.49-50,
110-111).We can distinguish among the four types of validity by noting that each involves avalidity,the criterionbehavior is of concern to the tester,and he may have no concern whatsoever with thetype of behavior exhibited in the test.(An employer does not care if a worker canmanipulate blocks,but the score on the block test may predict something he caresabout.)Content validity is studied when the tester is concerned with the type of behaviorinvolved in the test performance.Indeed,if the test is a work sample,the behavior
represented in the test may be an end in itself.Construct validity is ordinarily studied
when the tester has no definite criterion measure of the quality withwhich he isconcerned,and must use indirect measures.Here the trait or quality underlying the testif of central importance,rather than either the test behavior or the scores on the criteria(59,p.14).
criterion is pure speculation"(p.67).Yet elsewhere this article supports constructvalidation.Tests can be profitably interpreted if we"know the relationships between thetested behavior...and otherbehaviorsamples,none of these behavior samplesnecessarily occupying the preeminent position of a criterion"(p.75).Factor analysiswith several partial criteria might be used to study whether a test measures a postulated
"general learning ability."If the data demonstrate specificity of ability instead,suchspecificity is"useful in its own right in advancing our knowledge of behavior;it shouldnot be construed as a weakness of the tests"(p.75).We depart from Anastasi at two points.She writes,"The validity of a psychological testshould not be confused with an analysis of the factors which determine the behaviorunder consideratio
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。