ScholarGate
Asistents

Salīdzināt metodes

Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.

Satursvaliditāte datorizētajā adaptīvajā testēšanā (CAT)×Konstrukta validitāte×
NozarePsihometrijaPsihometrija
SaimeLatent structureLatent structure
Izcelsmes gads1975 / 19801955
AutorsLawshe (content validity); Lord & Weiss (CAT framework)Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl
TipsValidity evaluation / test designValidity evaluation framework
PirmavotsLawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. link ↗Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗
Citi nosaukumiCAT content validity, adaptive item bank content coverage, content balancing in CAT, CAT blueprint validityconstruct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation
Saistītās66
KopsavilkumsContent 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.Construct validity is the degree to which a test or scale actually measures the theoretical construct it is intended to measure. Introduced by Cronbach and Meehl in 1955, it is the central validity concern in psychological and educational measurement, evaluated by accumulating multiple lines of empirical and logical evidence rather than by any single statistical test.
ScholarGateDatu kopa
  1. v1
  2. 2 Avoti
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Avoti
  3. PUBLISHED

Doties uz meklēšanu Lejupielādēt slaidus

ScholarGateSalīdzināt metodes: Computerized Adaptive Test Content Validity · Construct Validity. Izgūts 2026-06-15 no https://scholargate.app/lv/compare