No abstract

No abstract

This Research Commentary addresses the need for an instrument abstract—termed an Interpretation and Use Statement (IUS)—to be included when mathematics educators present instruments for use by others in journal articles and other communication venues (e.g., websites and administration manuals). We begin with presenting the need for IUSs, including the importance of a focus on interpretation and use. We then propose a set of elements—identified by a group of mathematics education researchers, instrument developers, and psychometricians—to be included in the IUS. We describe the development process, the recommended elements for inclusion, and two example IUSs. Last, we present why IUSs have the potential to benefit end users and the field of mathematics education.

Since it was formalized by Kane, the argument-based approach to validation has been promoted as the preferred method for validating interpretations and uses of test scores. Because validation is discussed in terms of arguments, and arguments are both interactive and social, the present review systematically examines the scholarly arguments which appear in 83 papers on argument-based validation methods published in peer-reviewed journals. Findings suggest that scholars generally agree on the nature and importance of argument-based validation but disagree on whether validation should be structured or unstructured, formal or informal. Implications are discussed, including promotion of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, and NCME) as a foundation for consensus in the field.

No abstract