Content validity has been defined as the formal specification of the universe of tasks the test purports to measure. The universe of tasks consists of both the subject matter of the instrument and the structure of the instrument. However, it has been observed that instrument structure is often overlooked in the development and validation of achievement tests. A review of the research on item writing, item format, test instructions, and item readability indicated the importance of instrument structure in the interpretation of test data. The effect of failing to consider these areas on the content validity of achievement test scores was discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological AssociationStandards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association, 1974.
2.
Anderson, R.C.How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 1972, 42, 145-170.
3.
Anderson, R.C. and Myrow, D.L.Retroactive inhibition of meaningful discourse. Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph, 1971, 62, 81-94.
4.
Baker, E.L.Beyond objectives: Domain-referenced tests for evaluation and instructional improvement. Educational Technology, 1974 , 14, 10-16.
5.
Benson, J. and Crocker, L.The effects of item format and reading ability on objective test performance: A question of validity. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT , 1979, 39, 381-387.
6.
Board, C. and Whitney, D.R.The effect of poor item writing practices on test difficulty, reliability, and validity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1972, 9, 225-233.
7.
Bormuth, J.R.On the theory of achievement test items. Chicago, Ill. : University of Chicago Press, 1970.
8.
Clemans, W.V.Test administration. In R. L. Thorndike (ed.) Educational Measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971.
9.
Cohen, S.A. and Stover, G.Effect of teaching sixth grade students to modify format variables of math word problems. Reading Research Quarterly1981, 16, 175-200.
10.
Cook, D.L.An investigation of three aspects of free response and choice-type tests at the college level. Dissertation Abstracts, 1955, 1351.
11.
Cronbach, L.J.Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971.
12.
Dale, E. and Chall, J.S.A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 1948, 27, 11-20.
13.
Dunn, T.F. and Goldstein, L.G.Test difficulty, validity and realiability as functions of selective multiple-choice item construction principals. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1959, 19, 171-179.
Guion, R.M.Content Validity—the source of my discontent. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1977, 1, 1-10.
16.
Gronlund, N.E.Stating behavioral objectives for classroom instruction. New York, N. Y.: Macmillan, 1970 .
17.
Guttman, L.Integration of test design and analysis in Preceedings of the 1969Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1969.
18.
Hively, W.H., Maxwell, G., Rabehl, G., Sension, D., and Lundin, S.Domain-referenced curriculum evaluation: A technical handbook and a case study from the Minnemast Program. Monograph series in Evaluation, No. 1. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, 1973.
19.
Homan, S.A report on the first application of a formula to determine readability level of individual test items. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education , Boston, Mass., 1980.
Mehrens, W.A. and Lehmann, I.J.Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (2nd ed.). New York, N.Y.: Holt, 1978.
23.
Messick, S. and Kogan, N.Category width and quantitative aptitude. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 20, 493-497.
24.
Millman, J.Criterion-referenced measurement. In W. J. Popham (ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applications . Berkeley, CA.: McCutchan Publishing Co., 1974.
25.
Niedermeisr, F.C. and Sullivan, H.J.Differential effects of individual and group testing strategies in an objectives-based instructional program. Journal of Educational Measurement , 1972, 9, 199-204.
26.
Popham, W.J.Objectives in instruction. In W. J. Popham et al., Instructional objectives. Skokie, Ill.: Rand McNally, 1969 .
27.
Popham, W.J.Educational evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, 1975.
28.
Rowley, G.L.Which examinees are most favored by the use of multiple-choice tests?Journal of Educational Measurement, 1974 , 11, 15-23.
29.
Runkel, P.J.Some recent ideas in research methodology. Eugene, Ore .: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965.
30.
Slakter, M.J.The penalty for not guessing. Journal of Educational Measurement , 1968, 5, 141-144 (a).
31.
Slakter, M.H.The effect of guessing strategy on objective test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968, 5, 217-221 (b).
32.
Slakter, M.S., Crehan, D.D., and Koehler, R.A.Longitudinal studies of risk taking on objective examinations. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1975, 35, 97-105.
33.
Slocum, T.J.Locally produced item banks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education , Chicago, Ill., 1972.
34.
Spache, G.A.A new readability formula for primary grade reading materials. Elementary School Journal, 1953, 53, 410-413.
35.
Wesman, A.G.Writing the test item. In R. L. Thorndike (ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1971.
