Presents a new approach to construct validation research: construct modeling. A paradigm shift from functionalism to structuralism in psychology permits 2 types of research to be separated. Construct representation is concerned with identifying the theoretical mechanisms that underlie responses, such as information processes, strategies, and knowledge stores. Three approaches to assessing construct representation are presented: (1) mathematical modeling, particularly as used in cognitive psychology; (2) psychometric modeling, as exemplified by latent trait modeling; and (3) multicomponent latent trait modeling. Nomothetic span is concerned with the network of relationships of a test score with other variables. These 2 types of construct validation research address different issues and require different types of data. For each type of construct validation research, appropriate methods and quantitative models are presented to test a priori hypotheses about construct validity. Examples are presented, and the construct modeling approach is compared with both the traditional psychometric approach and the information-processing approach to establishing theoretical mechanisms in performance. (41 ref)

latent trait models, information-processing models, ability measurement,

No abstract

Although it has been claimed that the Rasch model leads to a higher degree of objectivity in measurement than has been previously possible, this model has had little impact on test development. Population-invariant item and ability calibrations, together with the statistical equivalency of any two item subsets, are supposedly possible if the item pool has been calibrated by the Rasch model. Initial research has been encouraging, but the implications of underlying assumptions and operational computations in the Rasch model for trait theory have not been clear from previous work. The current paper presents an analysis of the conditions under which the claims of objectivity will be substantiated, with special emphasis on the nature of equivalent forms. It is concluded that the real advantages of the Rasch model will not be apparent until the technology of trait measurement becomes more sophisticated.A procedure for a new kind of item analysis, based on the Rasch (1960, 1961, 1966a, 1966b) logistic model, is now available for use in developing measures of unidimensional traits. Wright (1967), one of the first researchers to operationalize the Rasch model, claims that the use of this model leads to an objectivity in measurement which is not possible under classical approaches to test development. The objectivity, according to Rasch (1961), results from two basic features of the model: 1) the calibration of the test items is independent of the sample and 2) the measurement of a person on the latent trait is independent of the particular items used.A psychological test having these general characteristics would become directly analogous to a yardstick that measures the length of objects. That is, the intervals on the yardstick are independent of the length of the objects and the length of individual objects is interpretable without respect to which particular yardstick is used. In contrast, tests developed according to the classical model have neither characteristic. The score obtained by a person is not interpretable without referring to both some norm group and the particular test form used. Wright and Panchapakesan (1969) claim that objective measurement is now possible because their estimation techniques for the Rasch parameters yield tests with the following specific properties: 1)the estimates of the item difficulty parameter will not vary significantly over different samples of people, 2) the estimates of a person's ability, given a certain raw score, will be invariant over different samples, and 3) estimates of a person's ability from any calibrated subset of items will be statistically equivalent. If these properties are truly now possible through application of the Rasch model, it would seem that mental measurement would be revolutionized. No longer would equivalent forms need to be carefully developed, since measurement is instrument independent and any two subsets of the calibrated item pool could be used as alternative mNow at