Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Diskriminanttivaliditeetti tietokoneistetussa adaptiivisessa testauksessa (CAT)× | Konstruktion validiteetti tietokoneistetussa adaptiivisessa testauksessa (CAT)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Psykometriikka | Psykometriikka |
| Menetelmäperhe | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1959 (discriminant validity); CAT application from 1990s onward | 1989–2000s |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Campbell & Fiske (discriminant validity framework); applied to CAT by educational measurement researchers | Samuel Messick (unified validity framework); CAT application formalized by Wainer, van der Linden, and colleagues |
| Tyyppi≠ | Validity evaluation technique | Validity evaluation / psychometric evidence gathering |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Weiss, D. J. (2004). Computerized adaptive testing for effective and efficient measurement in counseling and education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(2), 70–84. DOI ↗ | Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education / Macmillan. link ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | CAT discriminant validity, adaptive test divergent validity, CAT scale differentiation, CAT construct separation | CAT construct validity, adaptive test construct validation, CAT validity evidence, construct validity evidence in CAT |
| Liittyvät≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Discriminant validity in computerized adaptive testing (CAT) is the evaluation process confirming that a CAT-administered scale measures its intended construct distinctly from related but conceptually different constructs. Despite the adaptive item-selection mechanism varying each respondent's item set, evidence must be provided that CAT-derived scores do not overlap excessively with scores from theoretically distinct scales. | Construct validity in computerized adaptive testing evaluates whether the latent trait estimates produced by a CAT instrument genuinely measure the intended psychological or educational construct. Because adaptive algorithms select items individually for each examinee, the validity evidence gathered must account for the variable item exposure and the IRT-based scoring that are unique to CAT administrations. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|