Frontiers of test validity theory: measurement, causation, and meaning

By Michael Kane. 2014

206 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e10d8fecb292781dd94b0be3576305cfef6a7b6b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Assessment and learning: fields apart? (2017, background): “The meaning of numbers generated by assessment models is generated not by the numbers themselves, but by the people generating the link between the numbers and substantive theory (Markus & Borsboom, 2013, p. 45).”
A Psychometric Network Perspective on the Validity and Validation of Personality Trait Questionnaires (2019, background): “Importantly, the selection of attributes will change the composition of the network, meaning that different questionnaires will have different compositions despite still plausibly referring to extraversion (Markus and Borsboom, 2013).”
Bridging Design and Behavioral Research With Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (2017, methodology): “If needed, researchers can rely on additional assessment criteria implemented for covariance-based SEM (e.g., see Markus and Borsboom 2013).”
Towards More Rigorous Personality Trait–Outcome Research (2016, result): “This realist assumption about traits is most naturally consistent with the common-cause latent trait interpretation (Borsboom et al., 2003; Markus & Borsboom, 2013).”
On the adoption of partial least squares in psychological research: Caveat emptor (2015, background): “…approach, have led to calls for abandoning formative measurement altogether (Edwards, 2011; Hardin, Chang, Fuller, & Torkzadeh, 2011) or at least changing the term to break the connection with formative models and measurement (Markus & Borsboom, 2013, p. 172; Rhemtulla, Bork, & Borsboom, 2015).”
Validity and Validation in Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences (2014, unknown): “Although it is not unanimous (see, for example, Borsboom et al. 2004; Markus and Borsboom 2013 as dissenting views), overall there are a series of statements about validity and validation practices that are shared and characterize a “contem-porary view of validity” (e.g., Cronbach 1988; Hubley and…”