השוואת שיטות
סקרו את השיטות שבחרתם זו לצד זו; שורות שבהן יש הבדל מודגשות.
| תוקף מבנה במבחני הסתגלות ממוחשבים (CAT)× | ניתוח גורמים מאשר (CFA)× | |
|---|---|---|
| תחום | פסיכומטריה | פסיכומטריה |
| משפחה | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| שנת המקור≠ | 1989–2000s | 1969 |
| הוגה השיטה≠ | Samuel Messick (unified validity framework); CAT application formalized by Wainer, van der Linden, and colleagues | Karl Gustav Jöreskog |
| סוג≠ | Validity evaluation / psychometric evidence gathering | Hypothesis-testing latent variable model |
| מקור מכונן≠ | Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education / Macmillan. link ↗ | Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183–202. DOI ↗ |
| כינויים | CAT construct validity, adaptive test construct validation, CAT validity evidence, construct validity evidence in CAT | CFA, confirmatory FA, measurement model, restricted factor analysis |
| קשורות≠ | 6 | 4 |
| תקציר≠ | 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. | Confirmatory factor analysis tests a researcher-specified factor structure against observed data. Unlike exploratory approaches, the researcher decides in advance which indicators load on which latent factor, and the model is evaluated by how closely the implied covariance matrix reproduces the sample covariance matrix. CFA is central to scale validation, construct validity assessment, and measurement invariance testing. |
| ScholarGateמערך נתונים ↗ |
|
|