what is one way to obtain a criterion validity estimate

EXPLORING RELIABILITY IN Academic ASSESSMENT

Written past Colin Phelan and Julie Wren, Graduate Assistants, UNI Office of Academic Assessment (2005-06)

Reliability is the degree to which an assessment tool produces stable and consistent results.

Types of Reliability

1. Exam-retest reliability is a measure of reliability obtained by administering the same exam twice over a catamenia of time to a grouping of individuals.  The scores from Time 1 and Time two can so exist correlated in order to evaluate the test for stability over time.

Example: A test designed to appraise pupil learning in psychology could exist given to a grouping of students twice, with the 2d administration peradventure coming a week after the showtime.  The obtained correlation coefficient would indicate the stability of the scores.

2. Parallel forms reliability is a mensurate of reliability obtained past administering dissimilar versions of an assessment tool (both versions must incorporate items that probe the same construct, skill, knowledge base of operations, etc.) to the aforementioned group of individuals.  The scores from the two versions can and so be correlated in club to evaluate the consistency of results across alternate versions.

Case: If you wanted to evaluate the reliability of a critical thinking assessment, you might create a large set up of items that all pertain to disquisitional thinking and and then randomly split the questions up into two sets, which would stand for the parallel forms.

3. Inter-rater reliability is a measure of reliability used to assess the degree to which different judges or raters agree in their cess decisions.  Inter-rater reliability is useful because man observers will not necessarily interpret answers the aforementioned way; raters may disagree as to how well certain responses or cloth demonstrate noesis of the construct or skill being assessed.

Example:  Inter-rater reliability might be employed when different judges are evaluating the degree to which art portfolios meet certain standards.  Inter-rater reliability is specially useful when judgments can be considered relatively subjective.  Thus, the utilise of this type of reliability would probably be more likely when evaluating artwork equally opposed to math problems.

4. Internal consistency reliability is a measure of reliability used to evaluate the caste to which different exam items that probe the same construct produce similar results.

1. Boilerplate inter-particular correlation is a subtype of internal consistency reliability.  Information technology is obtained past taking all of the items on a test that probe the same construct (eastward.g., reading comprehension), determining the correlation coefficient for each pair of items, and finally taking the boilerplate of all of these correlation coefficients.  This last stride yields the average inter-detail correlation.

2. Carve up-half reliability is another subtype of internal consistency reliability.  The process of obtaining separate-half reliability is begun by �splitting in half� all items of a test that are intended to probe the aforementioned surface area of knowledge (e.g., World State of war Two) in order to course two �sets� of items.  The entire examination is administered to a group of individuals, the full score for each �set� is computed, and finally the carve up-half reliability is obtained past determining the correlation between the two total �set� scores.

Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure.

Why is it necessary?

While reliability is necessary, it lonely is not sufficient.  For a test to be reliable, it likewise needs to exist valid.  For instance, if your calibration is off by 5 lbs, information technology reads your weight every mean solar day with an backlog of 5lbs.  The calibration is reliable because it consistently reports the aforementioned weight every twenty-four hours, only it is not valid considering information technology adds 5lbs to your true weight.  It is not a valid measure out of your weight.

Types of Validity

1. Face up Validity ascertains that the measure appears to be assessing the intended construct under study. The stakeholders tin can easily assess face validity. Although this is not a very �scientific� type of validity, it may be an essential component in enlisting motivation of stakeholders. If the stakeholders practice not believe the measure is an authentic assessment of the ability, they may become disengaged with the task.

Instance: If a measure of art appreciation is created all of the items should be related to the different components and types of fine art.  If the questions are regarding historical time periods, with no reference to any artistic motion, stakeholders may non be motivated to give their best effort or invest in this measure considering they do non believe it is a true assessment of art appreciation.

2. Construct Validity is used to ensure that the measure is actually measure what information technology is intended to measure out (i.e. the construct), and not other variables. Using a panel of �experts� familiar with the construct is a way in which this blazon of validity can be assessed. The experts can examine the items and decide what that specific detail is intended to measure out.  Students tin can be involved in this procedure to obtain their feedback.

Instance: A women�due south studies program may pattern a cumulative assessment of learning throughout the major.  The questions are written with complicated wording and phrasing.  This can cause the test inadvertently becoming a exam of reading comprehension, rather than a test of women�s studies.  It is important that the measure is actually assessing the intended construct, rather than an inapplicable cistron.

3. Criterion-Related Validity is used to predict future or current performance - it correlates test results with another criterion of interest.

Example: If a physics program designed a measure to assess cumulative pupil learning throughout the major.  The new measure could be correlated with a standardized measure of ability in this subject, such every bit an ETS field test or the GRE subject test. The higher the correlation between the established measure and new measure, the more faith stakeholders can have in the new assessment tool.

four. Formative Validity when applied to outcomes assessment information technology is used to assess how well a measure is able to provide information to help improve the program under study.

Case:  When designing a rubric for history one could assess student�s knowledge across the discipline.  If the mensurate can provide information that students are lacking knowledge in a sure surface area, for case the Civil Rights Movement, and then that assessment tool is providing meaningful information that can be used to better the course or program requirements.

5. Sampling Validity (similar to content validity) ensures that the measure covers the broad range of areas within the concept under study.  Not everything can be covered, then items need to be sampled from all of the domains.  This may need to be completed using a console of �experts� to ensure that the content surface area is adequately sampled.  Additionally, a panel can help limit �expert� bias (i.eastward. a test reflecting what an individual personally feels are the almost of import or relevant areas).

Example: When designing an assessment of learning in the theatre section, it would not be sufficient to only cover bug related to acting.  Other areas of theatre such as lighting, audio, functions of stage managers should all be included.  The cess should reflect the content area in its entirety.

What are some means to improve validity?

1. Make certain your goals and objectives are clearly divers and operationalized.  Expectations of students should be written down.
2. Match your assessment measure to your goals and objectives. Additionally, have the test reviewed by faculty at other schools to obtain feedback from an outside party who is less invested in the musical instrument.
3. Get students involved; have the students look over the assessment for troublesome diction, or other difficulties.
4. If possible, compare your measure with other measures, or data that may be available.

References

American Educational Inquiry Association, American Psychological Association, &

National Quango on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: Authors.

Cozby, P.C. (2001). Measurement Concepts. Methods in Behavioral Research (vii^thursday ed.).

California: Mayfield Publishing Visitor.

Cronbach, 50. J. (1971). Examination validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.). Educational

Measurement (2d ed.). Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education.

Moskal, B.M., & Leydens, J.A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and

reliability. Applied Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10). [Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&north=10].

The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching. How to amend test reliability and

validity: Implications for grading. [Bachelor online: http://oct.sfsu.edu/assessment/evaluating/htmls/improve_rel_val.html].

granberrythaniorefore1998.blogspot.com

Source: https://chfasoa.uni.edu/reliabilityandvalidity.htm