This is the second post in a series on the topic of validity in educational assessment. In my first post, I described the traditional characterization of content-related, criterion-related, and construct-related evidence as they are relevant to educators and credentialing innovators who use and design assessments. This post summarizes traditional characterizations of “consequential validity.” This aspect of validity concerns the broader consequences of administering assessments to learners and using the resulting scores. It is a complex idea that is really crucial to many assessment and credentialing innovators (because broader change is their goal). Many measurement professionals have long argued that it an "unsanctioned" aspect of validity. Before I write about how that is changing, I want to describe how consequential validity has traditionally been written about and why I have long disagreed.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Monday, July 4, 2016
By Daniel Hickey
In my work with the Participatory Assessment Lab at Indiana University and in my graduate education courses, I spend a lot of time helping people understand validity in the context of educational assessment. In this post, I describe validity as it has traditionally been presented to educators. I summarize what one leading textbook has long said educators should know about validity when assessing learning in their own classes, and I extend that to credentialing innovators who are developing digital badge systems, micro-credentials, and competency-based educational programs. In subsequent posts, I will explore traditional views of “face validity” and “consequential validity.” Together, these posts will lay the groundwork for a final post that will explore several new developments in validity theory that I believe are important for these two communities.