Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| [ELEMENT 0 MISSING - NEEDS TRANSLATION]× | Validitatea de construct× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Psihometrie | Psihometrie |
| Familie | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1975 / 1980 | 1955 |
| Autorul original≠ | Lawshe (content validity); Lord & Weiss (CAT framework) | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Tip≠ | Validity evaluation / test design | Validity evaluation framework |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Lawshe, 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 ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | CAT content validity, adaptive item bank content coverage, content balancing in CAT, CAT blueprint validity | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| Înrudite | 6 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|