Comparison of Two Approaches to Interpretive Use Arguments

References

• AERA, APA, & NCME. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. F. (2005). Building and supporting a case for test use. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 2(1), 1–34. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0201_1
   Google Scholar
• Bell, C. A., Gitomer, D. H., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., & Qi, Y. (2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 62–87. doi:10.1080/10627197.2012.715014
   Google Scholar
• Bostic, J. D., Krupa, E., Carney, M., & Shih, J. (in press). Reflecting on the past and thinking ahead in the measurement of students’ outcomes. In J. D. Bostic, E. Krupa, & J. Shih (Eds.), Quantitative measures of mathematical knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, M., & Smith, E. (2017a). Analyzing item measure hierarchies to develop a model of students’ proportional reasoning. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, M., Smith, E., Hughes, G., Brendefur, J., & Crawford, A. (2016). Influence of proportional number relationships on item accessibility and students strategies. Mathematics Education Research Journal. doi:10.1007/s13394-016-0177-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carney, M. B., & Smith, E. (2017b). Using instrument development processes to iteratively improve construct maps: An example in proportional reasoning. Paper presented at the NCME Special Conference - Classroom Assessment and Large-Scale Psychometrics: The Twain Shall Meet, Lawrence, KS.
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C. A. (2012). Validity argument for language assessment: The framework is simple…. Language Testing, 29(1), 19–27. doi:10.1177/0265532211417211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument‐based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–13. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00165.x
   Google Scholar
• Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Koons, H. H. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 397–412. doi:10.1177/0013164407310130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clauser, B. E., Margolis, M. J., Holtman, M. C., Katsufrakis, P. J., & Hawkins, R. E. (2012). Validity considerations in the assessment of professionalism. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17(2), 165–181. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9219-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer, H. I. Braun, & Educational Testing Service (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications
   Google Scholar
• Ferrara, S., Lai, E., Reilly, A., & Nichols, P. D. (2016). Principled Approaches to Assessment Design, Development, and Implementation In A. Rupp & J. Leighton (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Cognition and Assessment: Frameworks, Methodologies, and Applications (pp. 41–74). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C., & Shih, J. C. (2009). Examining the quality of statistical mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 241–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 527. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319–342. doi:10.1111/jedm.2001.38.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2004). Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement, 2(3), 135–170.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2006). Valildation. In R. L. Brennan & National Council on Measurement in Education, & American Council on Education (Eds.), Educational measurement (pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2007). Validating measures of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2–3), 180–187. doi:10.1080/15366360701492807
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2013a). The argument-based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2013b). Validation as a pragmatic, scientific activity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 115–122. doi:10.1111/jedm.12007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. T. (2016). Validation strategies: Delineating and validating proposed interpretations and uses of test scores. In S. Lane, M. Raymond, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (Vol. 2, pp. 80–96). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lobato, J., Ellis, A. B., & Charles, R. I. (2010). Developing essential understanding of ratios, proportions,and proportional reasoning for teaching mathematics in grades 6-8. Reston, VA: National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X018002005
   Google Scholar
• Minner, D., Martinez, A., & Freeman, B. (2013). Compendium of research instruments for STEM education, Part 1: Teacher practices, PCK and content knowledge with addendum. Retrieved from http://cadrek12.org/resources/compendium-research-instruments-stem-education-part-i-teacher-practices-pck-and-content-kn
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association [NGA] Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers [CCSSO]. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
   Google Scholar
• Pellegrino, J. W., DiBello, L. V., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). A framework for conceptualizing and evaluating the validity of instructionally relevant assessments. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 59–81. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1145550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., Wills, K., Giamellaro, M., Lan, M. C., Mason, H., & Sands, D. (2012). Developing and evaluating instructionally sensitive assessments in science. Journal Of Research InScience Teaching, 49(6), 691–712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilling, S. G., & Hill, H. C. (2007). Assessing measures of mathematical knowledge for teaching: A validity argument approach. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2–3), 70–80. doi:10.1080/15366360701486965
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, S., Crisp, V., & Johnson, N. (2012). A framework for evidencing assessment validity in large-scale, high-stakes international examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(2), 159–176. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.563356
   Google Scholar
• Shear, B. R., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). What counts as evidence: A review of validity studies in educational and psychological measurement. In B. D. Zumbo & E. K. H. Chan (Eds.), Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences (pp. 91–111). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sireci, S. G. (2012). Smarter balanced assessment consortium: Comprehensive research agenda. Retrieved from https://portal.smarterbalanced.org/library/en/comprehensive-research-agenda.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, M. (2018). Developing an essential feature of test validity arguments: Alignment among the testdesign, interpretation of test outcomes, and evidence for validity. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Wolming, S., & Wikström, C. (2010). The concept of validity in theory and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 117–132. doi:10.1080/09695941003693856
   Google Scholar