Methoden vergelijken
Bekijk de geselecteerde methoden naast elkaar; rijen die verschillen zijn gemarkeerd.
| Constructvaliditeit in Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT)× | Constructvaliditeit× | |
|---|---|---|
| Vakgebied | Psychometrie | Psychometrie |
| Familie | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Jaar van ontstaan≠ | 1989–2000s | 1955 |
| Grondlegger≠ | Samuel Messick (unified validity framework); CAT application formalized by Wainer, van der Linden, and colleagues | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Type≠ | Validity evaluation / psychometric evidence gathering | Validity evaluation framework |
| Oorspronkelijke bron≠ | Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). American Council on Education / Macmillan. link ↗ | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ |
| Aliassen | CAT construct validity, adaptive test construct validation, CAT validity evidence, construct validity evidence in CAT | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| Verwant | 6 | 6 |
| Samenvatting≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateGegevensset ↗ |
|
|