Content Validation of the Comprehension of Written Grammar Assessment for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students

Abstract

Content validation is a crucial, but often neglected, component of good test development. In the present study, content validity evidence was collected to determine the degree to which elements (e.g., grammatical structures, items, picture responses, administration, and scoring instructions) of the Comprehension of Written Grammar (CWG) test are representative of the construct of interest and appropriate for deaf and/or hard of hearing (DHH) students. Using 10 subject matter experts (SMEs) and the Content Validity Index, the quantitative findings showed general support for the content validity of elements of the CWG in assessing the written grammar comprehension of DHH students. Suggested revisions to the test, based on the feedback provided by the SMEs, are discussed.

Keywords

content validity deaf and hard of hearing grammar subject matter experts test development assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Babbidge

H. D.

(1965). Education of the deaf. A report to the secretary of health, education, and welfare by his advisory committee on the education of the deaf. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Beck

C. T.

Gable

R. K.

(2001). Ensuring content validity: An illustration of the process. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 9, 201-215.

Cannon

J. E.

Easterbrooks

S. R.

Gagné

Beal-Alvarez

(2011). Improving DHH students’ grammar through an individualized software program. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 437-457. doi:10.1093/deafed/enr023

Chomsky

(1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Easterbrooks

S. R.

(2010). Comprehension of written grammar (Unpublished assessment). Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

Gallaudet Research Institute, (2013, August). Regional and national summary report of data from the 2011-2012 Annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University. Retrieved from https://research.gallaudet.edu/resources/ragu/abstract/6/

Haynes

S. N.

Richard

D. C. S.

Kubany

E. S.

(1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238-247. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238

Hubley

A. M.

Palepu

(2007). Injection Drug Users Quality of Life (IDUQOL) Scale: Findings from a content validation study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, Article 46. Retrieved from http://www.hqlo.com/content/pdf/1477-7525-5-46.pdf

10.

Hubley

A. M.

Zumbo

B. D.

(2013). Psychometric characteristics of assessment procedures: An overview. In Geisinger

K. F.

(Ed.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 3-19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

11.

Jamieson

J. R.

Simmons

(2003). Formal and informal approaches to the language assessment of Deaf children. In Marschark

Spencer

P. E.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (pp. 275-288). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

12.

Lawshe

C. H.

(1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

13.

Lynn

M. R.

(1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382-385.

14.

Mitchell

R. E.

Karchmer

M. A.

(2004). Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4, 138-163. doi:10.1353/sls.2004.0005