This article presents a critique of the social and political context in which the idea of construct validation developed. Itoutlines the rhetorical as well as the empirical andphilosophical dimensions of the concept Finaly, the essay offers an alternative viewpoint for the conceptulizaton of construct validation and links it to current treatments of the topic by members of the measurement community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berlak, H.
, Newman, F M., Adams, E., Archbald, D. A., Burgess, T., Raven, J., & Romberg, T. A. (1992). Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment. New York: SUNY Press.
2.
Bloom, B.
(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.
3.
Campbell, D.
, & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
4.
Cherryholmes, C. H.
(1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
5.
Cook, T. D.
, & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
6.
Cronbach, L. J.
(1987). Construct validation after thirty years. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
7.
Cronbach, L. J.
(1988). Five perspectives on the validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Cronbach, L. J.
, & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
9.
Diesing, P.
(1991). How does social science work? Reflections on practice. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
10.
Fischer, F.
(1985). Critical evaluation of public policy: A methodological case study. In J. Forester (Ed.), Critical theory and public life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
Fuller, S.
(1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
12.
Gould, S. J.
(1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
13.
Habermas, J.
(1973). A postscript to "Knowledge and human interests."Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 3, 157-189.
14.
Hanson, F A.
(1993). Testing testing: Social consequences of the examined life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Julian, E. R.
, & Wright, B. D. (1988). Using computerized patient simulations to measure the clinical competence of physicians. Applied Measurement in Education, 1, 299-318.
16.
Kamin, L.
(1974). The science and politics ofI.QNew York: Wiley.
17.
Kaplan, A.
(1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.
18.
Karier, C. J.
(1976). Testing for order and control in the corporate liberal state. In N. J. Block & G. Dworkin (Eds.), The IQ controversy: Critical readings. New York: Pantheon.
19.
Linn, R. L.
(1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1-16.
20.
Messick, S.
(1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd. ed.). New York: American Council on Education & Macmillan.
21.
Norris, S. P.
(1983). The inconsistencies at the foundation of construct validation theory. In E. R. House (Ed.), Philosophy of evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Raven, J.
(1989). A model of competence, motivation, and behavior, and a paradigm for assessment In H. Berlak, E M. Newmann, E. Adams, D. A. Archbald, T. Burgess, J. Raven, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Toward a new science of educational testing and assessment. New York: SUNY Press.
23.
Simons, H. W.
(Ed.). (1990). The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Smith, M. S.
, O'Day, J., & Cohen, D. K. (1990). National curriculum American style: Can it be done? What might it look like?American Educator, 14(4), 10-17, 40-47.
25.
White, S.
(1977). Social implications of IQ. In P. Houts (Ed.), The myth of measurability. New York: Hart.
