Talk:Test validity

Difficult to read

I found this page very difficult to read, as it uses too much technical language - and I'm studying research papers at Masters level. The concept of validity can be stated much more clearly in layman's terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Could you be more specific? Which sentences are hard to read/don't make sense. Which technical jargon would you replace with which layman's terms? Let's work on them. I'm a PhD and I welcome anytime someone can help me tone down my academic speech. Of course, there is one major issue with trying to make modern validity accessible: When you use simple terms to explain it, it sounds exactly like the classical model.

That's not to say it can't be done. James Popham from UCLA has a knack for that sort of thing, but he's not on Wikipedia. :)

Jmbrowne (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate

Also, the statement that different kinds of validity are not themselves valid is, um, not an accurate reflection of the current state of affairs within the psych-testing world. Current texts on assessment (Sattler, etc) explicitly do discuss different types of validity (and reliability), and the AERA and APA standards talk extensively about the test being valid for the purpose it's being used for. Example: The Rorschach is an example of a test that has rotten face validity, but terrific concurrent validity for some types of psychopathology. Mirafra (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Many "current text" do not reflect the modern model of validity as set forth in Messick 1995 and canonized in the 1999 Standards. That's why the article describes both the classical "many validities" model and the modern "validity as a unified concept" model. Some texts that do reflect the modern model (e.g. Nitko & Brookhart) issue the caveat that they will discuss the validity of tests and results as a short-hand reference to the validity of interpretations and uses of test results.

Also note that your description of the 1999 Standards doesn't say that a test is "valid," but that a test may be "valid for the purpose it's being used for." So it's not the test that is valid per se, but the specific use of the test. Modern validity theory makes that distinction quite clear.

Oh, and Anastasi stated over 20 years ago that face validity isn't a real validity:

Face validity is not validity in the technical sense; it refers not to what the test actually measures, but to what it appears superficially to measure. Face validity pertains to whether the test “looks valid” to the examinees who take it, the administrative personnel who decide on its use, and other technically untrained observers. -Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: MacMillan. p. 144.

That volume is cited in Bornstein's reaction to Messick's unified model. (Bornstein, R. F. Face validity in psychological assessment: Implications for a unified model of validity. American Psychologist, Vol 51(9). pp. 983-984.) Borstien rightly noted that face validity doesn't fit into the modern view. Though he lamented that fact, the 1999 Standards reflect the modern model, effectively depricating face validity.

Perhaps the WP article needs an expanded, clarified section on the classic model vs. the Modern model?Jmbrowne (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous edit "66.66.164.105" was me. (I didn't realized I wasn't logged in.) Jmbrowne (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence citations bibliography for updating this and other articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)