Content Validity at the Crossroads

Teaching for the Test: Validity, Fairness, and Moral Action

“…Professional standards for such assessments call for panels of subject experts to review test specifications and exercises and "map" them to the content standards (Baker, Linn, Herman, & Koretz, 2002). Also, the landmark decision in Debra P. v Turlington, sets clear precedent that evidence of fit between test content and the required curriculum provides a legally defensible argument for test use (see Yalow & Popham, 1983). Finally, unarguably, content representation is the only aspect of validation that can be completed prior to administering the test and reporting results.…”

Test validity.

“…Although the unitary conceptualization of validity stating that all validity is construct validity is intellectually compelling, not all test specialists have agreed with this perspective (e.g., Ebel, 1956Ebel, , 1961, and some have argued that avoiding terms such as content validity will have a negative impact on validation practices (e.g., Sireci, 1998a;Yalow & Popham, 1983). Nevertheless, construct validity theory provides a helpful framework for evaluating the use of a test for a particular purpose.…”

Content validity of measures of theoretical constructs in health psychology: Discriminant content validity is needed

“…However, the unitary conceptualization has never been universally accepted. Indeed, some predicted that the refusal to accept content validity as a form of validity would eventually be detrimental to validation practices (Sireci, ; Yalow & Popham, ); we share that view.…”