Developing a Validity Argument Through Abductive Reasoning with an Empirical Demonstration of the Latent Class Analysis

REFERENCES

• Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning: Logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht: Netherlands.
   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, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle. (2013). Aristotle on practical wisdom: Nicomachean ethics VI, C.D. C. Reeve (Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2013Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: A 3-step approach using Mplus [Online web notes]. Retrieved from http://statmodel.com/examples/webnotes/AuxMixture_submitted_corrected_webnote.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071.
   PubMed 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 & Practice, 29(1), 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C.A., Enright, M.K., & Jamieson, J.M. (Eds.). (2011). Building a validity argument for the test of teaching English as a foreign language. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2012). Canadian Language Benchmarks: English as a second language for adults. Ottawa, ON: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. Retrieved form http://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/cic/Ci63-26-2012-eng.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Clogg, C.C. (1995). Latent class models. In G. Arminger, C.C. Clogg, & M.E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 311–359). New York: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, L.A. (1974). Exploratory latent structure analysis using both identifiable and unidentifiable models. Biometrika, 61(2), 215–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harré, R. (1988). Realism and ontology. Philosophia Naturalis, 25, 386–398.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M.T. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, M.T. (2013a). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M.T. (2013b). The argument-based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 448–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, M.T. (2013c). Validation as a pragmatic, scientific activity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 115–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kant, I. (1933). Critique of pure reason, N.Kemp Smith (Trans.). London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, S. (2012). Consequences of assessment and accountability systems are integral to the argument-based approach to validity. Measurement, 10(1–2), 71–74.
   Google Scholar
• LeBaron Wallace, T. (2011). An argument-based approach to validity in evaluation. Evaluation, 17(3), 233–246.
   Google Scholar
• Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lo, Y., Mendell, N.R., & Rubin, D.B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88(3), 767–778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCutcheon, A.L. (Ed.). (1987). Latent class analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–104). New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, P.E. (2013). Two kinds of argument? Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 105–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oller, J.W. (2012). Grounding the argument-based framework for validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing, 29(1), 29–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peirce, C.S. (1935). In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 5). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sireci, S.G. (2013). Agreeing on validity arguments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 99–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, J.E., & Zumbo, B. (in press). Language assessment as a pragmatist project. In J. Fox & V. Aryadoust (Eds.), Current trends in language testing in the Pacific Rim and the Middle East: Policies, analyses, and diagnoses. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. (1978). The validity of transcendental arguments. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 79, 151–165.
   Google Scholar
• Vermunt, J.K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18(4), 450–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zumbo, B.D. (2007). Validity: Foundational issues and statistical methodology. In C.R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of statistics, Vol. 26: Psychometrics (pp. 45–79). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Zumbo, B.D. (2009). Validity as contextualized and pragmatic explanation, and its implications for validation practice. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions and applications (pp. 65–82). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar