References

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D. (2009). Measuring the mind. Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. (1971). Test validation. In R. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 335–355). Washington, DC: American Council of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. (1988). Five perspectives on the validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cureton, E. (1951). Validity. In E. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 621–694). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
   Google Scholar
• Deville, C. W., & Prometric, S. (1996). An empirical link of content and construct validity evidence. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 127–139. doi: 10.1177/014662169602000202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dings, C., & Hershberger, S. C. (2002). Assessing content validity and content equivalence using structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 283–297. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorans, N. J., & Lawrence, I. M. (1987). The internal construct validity of the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Research Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Ebel, R. (1961). Must all tests be valid? American Psychologist, 16, 640–647. doi: 10.1037/h0045478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebel, R. L. (1983). The practical validation of tests of ability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2(2), 7–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1983.tb00688.x
   Google Scholar
• Flockton, L., & Crooks, T. (2002). Social studies assessment results 2001. Dunedin: Educational Assessment Research Unit, University of Otago.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, J., & Davis, L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health, 20, 269–274. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199706)20:3<269::AID-NUR9>3.3.CO;2-3 doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199706)20:3<269::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, B. F. (1983). Identifiability of spurious factors using linear factor analysis with binary items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 139–147. doi: 10.1177/014662168300700202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guion, R. M. (1977). Content validity: Three years of talk-what’s the action. Public Personnel Management, 6, 407–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. (1980). Test score validity and standard-setting methods. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Criterion-referenced measurement: The state of art (pp. 80–123). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hambleton, R. (1984). Validating the test score. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), A guide to criterion referenced tests construction (pp. 199–230). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jarjoura, D., & Brennan, R. (1982). A variance components model for measurement procedures associated with a table of specifications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 161–171. doi: 10.1177/014662168200600202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. (1982). A sampling model for validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 125–160. doi: 10.1177/014662168200600201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4nd ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education and American Council on Education-Praeger Series on Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M. (2009). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity (pp. 39–64). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73. doi:10.2307/23353796 doi: 10.1111/jedm.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M., Crooks, T., & Cohen, A. (1999). Validating measures of performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18, 5–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1999.tb00010.x
   Google Scholar
• Landsberger, H. (1958). Hawthorne revisited: Management and the worker, its critics, and developments in human relations in industry. New York, NY: Ithaca.
   Google Scholar
• Lissitz, R., & Samuelsen, K. (2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding. Educational Researcher, 36, 635–694. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07311286
   Google Scholar
• Markus, K., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Frontiers of test validity theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012–1027. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.35.11.1012 doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1981). Evidence and ethics in the evaluation of tests. Educational Researcher, 10, 9–20. doi: 10.3102/0013189X010009009
   Google Scholar
• Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Popham, W. (1997). Consequential validity: Right concern-wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 9–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00586.x
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
   Google Scholar
• Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of Educational Research, 2, 49–60.
   Google Scholar
• Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, S., & Cook, S. (1980). Métodos de investigación en las relaciones sociales. Madrid: Rialp.
   Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R., Gao, X., & Baxter, G. (1995). On the content validity of performance. In M. Bierembaum & F. Douchy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning process, and prior knowledge (pp. 131–141). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Sireci, S. (1998a). Gathering and analyzing content validity data. Educational Assessment, 5, 299–321. doi: 10.1207/s15326977ea0504_2
   Google Scholar
• Sireci, S. (1998b). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45, 83–117. doi: 10.1023/A:1006985528729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sireci, S. (2003). Content validity. In R. Fernández (Ed.), Encyclopedia on psychological assessment (pp. 1075–1077). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sireci, S., & Geisinger, K. (1995). Using subject-matter experts to assess content representation: An MDS analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 241–255. doi: 10.1177/014662169501900303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sireci, S., & Geisinger, K. F. (1992). Analyzing test content using cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 17–31. doi: 10.1177/014662169201600102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utkin, L. V. (2006). A method for processing the unreliable expert judgments about parameters of probability distributions. European Journal of Operational Research, 175, 385–398. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yallow, E. S., & Popham, W. J. (1983). Content validity at the crossroads. Educational Researcher, 12(8), 10–21. doi: 10.3102/0013189X012008010
   Google Scholar