Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Validité de contenu dans les tests adaptatifs informatisés (TAI)× | Fonctionnement différentiel des items (FDI)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Psychométrie | Psychométrie |
| Famille | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Année d'origine≠ | 1975 / 1980 | 1970s–1993 |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Lawshe (content validity); Lord & Weiss (CAT framework) | William H. Angoff and colleagues (ETS); systematized by Holland & Wainer |
| Type≠ | Validity evaluation / test design | Item-level bias detection |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. link ↗ | Holland, P. W. & Wainer, H. (Eds.) (1993). Differential Item Functioning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN: 978-0805809589 |
| Alias | CAT content validity, adaptive item bank content coverage, content balancing in CAT, CAT blueprint validity | DIF, item bias analysis, measurement non-equivalence, item-level measurement bias |
| Apparentées≠ | 6 | 5 |
| Résumé≠ | Content validity in computerized adaptive testing (CAT) ensures that an adaptively administered assessment adequately samples the intended content domain despite delivering only a subset of items to each examinee. It integrates classical content validity methods with CAT-specific item bank design and content balancing algorithms to guarantee representative domain coverage at both the item bank and the individual test level. | Differential item functioning identifies test or survey items that behave differently for examinees from different groups — such as gender, ethnicity, or language background — after controlling for the underlying ability or trait being measured. DIF analysis is essential for fairness evaluation in educational testing and psychological scale development. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|