jeromedelisle.org

There are really only a few studies that have attempted to validate instruments and tests in the Caribbean. Implict in our actions is the colonial tradition that tests and instruments are neutral and do not really need validation. Having said that I admit that early studies on testing in the pre-independence and early indepences era were in fact explictlty focused upon validation. Although this has not continued, more and more researchers in the field of psychology are developing and validating instruments.

Educational Testing

A strong validity programme is needed for both public examinations and large scale assessments. This begins with theorizing upon interpretations and uses. What are SEA, CSEC, & CAPE used for?

1. Is the SEA valid as a selection and placement instrument?

2. What is being measured by the SEA?

3. Are policy claims plausible? What are they?

4. Are CSEC Mathematics/english scores valid?

5. What test development and administration procedures contribute/inhibit the validity of interpretations and uses for the CSEC subjects?

6. Is the grade boundary setting process fair?

Reading

Cronbach made the point that for validity arguments to be convincing to diverse stakeholders, they need to be based on assumptions that are credible to these stakeholders. The interpretations and uses of high-stakes test scores rely on a number of policy assumptions about what should be taught in schools, and more specifically, about the content standards and performance standards that should be applied to students and schools. For example, a high-school graduation test can be developed as a measure of readiness for the world of work, for college, or for citizenship and the activities of daily life. The assumptions built into the assessment need to be subjected to scrutiny and criticism if a strong case is to be made for the validity of the proposed interpretation and use. Kane 2002

1. DeLuca, C. (2011). Interpretive validity theory: Mapping a methodology for validating educational assessments. Educational Research, 53(3), 303-320.

2. Eggen, T. J., & Stobart, G. (Eds.). (2015). High-stakes testing in education: Value, fairness and consequences. Routledge.

3. Im, G. H., & McNamara, T. (2017). Legitimate or illegitimate uses of test scores in contexts unrelated to test purposes. English Teaching, 72(2), 71-99.

4. Kadir, K. A. (2008). Framing a validity argument for test use and impact: The Malaysian public service experience. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

5. Kane, M. (2002). Validating high‐stakes testing programs. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 21(1), 31-41.

6. Koch, M. J., & DeLuca, C. (2012). Rethinking validation in complex high-stakes assessment contexts. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 99-116.

7. Nichols, P. D., & Williams, N. (2009). Consequences of test score use as validity evidence: Roles and responsibilities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(1), 3-9.

8. Ryan, K. (2002). Assessment validation in the context of high‐stakes assessment. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 21(1), 7-15.

9. Schmidgall, J. E. (2017). Articulating and evaluating validity arguments for the TOEIC® tests. ETS Research Report Series, 2017(1), 1-9.

10. Stobart, G. (2009). Determining validity in national curriculum assessments. Educational Research, 51(2), 161-179.



Discussion

What are the critical validity issues relevant to Caribbean Public Examinations in Trinidad and Tobago?

What are some critical pieces of validty evidence to be collected for for the SEA, CSEC, & CAPE?

What are some of the notable claims?

What type of evidence should be collected for each inference category?