ScholarGate
Asisten

Bandingkan metode

Tinjau metode pilihan Anda berdampingan; baris yang berbeda akan disorot.

Validitas Isi dalam Pengujian Adaptif Terkomputerisasi (CAT)×Differential Item Functioning (DIF)×
BidangPsikometriPsikometri
KeluargaLatent structureLatent structure
Tahun asal1975 / 19801970s–1993
PencetusLawshe (content validity); Lord & Weiss (CAT framework)William H. Angoff and colleagues (ETS); systematized by Holland & Wainer
TipeValidity evaluation / test designItem-level bias detection
Sumber perintisLawshe, 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
AliasCAT content validity, adaptive item bank content coverage, content balancing in CAT, CAT blueprint validityDIF, item bias analysis, measurement non-equivalence, item-level measurement bias
Terkait65
RingkasanContent 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.
ScholarGateSet data
  1. v1
  2. 2 Sumber
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Sumber
  3. PUBLISHED

Ke halaman pencarian Unduh salindia

ScholarGateBandingkan metode: Computerized Adaptive Test Content Validity · Differential Item Functioning. Diakses 2026-06-15 dari https://scholargate.app/id/compare