The Centrality of Test Use and Consequences for Test Validity.

By L. Shepard. 2005

217 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/feeded9a6a89065b3c0b4993c31fba0cbbb2f953

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

1. J. Rounds
2. Matthew Inglis
3. Bruno D. Zumbo
4. Ian Jones
5. L. Goodwin
6. Nancy L. Leech
7. Denny Borsboom
8. G. Cizek

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Bruno D. Zumbo
2. Denny Borsboom
3. G. Cizek
4. Nancy L. Leech
5. Matthew Inglis
6. Ian Jones
7. L. Goodwin
8. P. Armstrong

Citations in the corpus

• The concept of validity. (2004, background): “In this context, it has been noted by validity theorists (Kane, 2001; Shepard, 1997) that requiring the existence of a nomological network is unrealistic in psychology, which is correct.”
• The Meaning of Validity in the New Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing: (2003, background): “Some measurement experts (e.g., Kane, 200 I; Lmn, 1997; Shepard, 1997) have argued for the broader conceptualization of validity (one that includes the consequences of using tests and other measures) , whereas others (e.”
• The Role of Consequences in validity Theory (2005, background): “Shepard (1997) responds to such arguments by pointing out that the consequential aspect of validity is hardly a new concept: “Consequences,” she argues, “are a logical part of the evaluation of test use, which has been an accepted focus of validity for several decades” (p. 5).”
• The validity of formative assessment (2011, background): “This is a consequential argument, an approach both championed ( Shepard, 1997 ) and disputed (Popham, 1997) in test validity1.”
• Validity and the Consequences of Test Interpretation and Use (2011, background): “…are under scrutiny’’ (p. 296) and if research findings obtained from test scores and the theory disagree, then this discrepancy needs to be resolved with either a new test, a new theory, or both because validation work applies to both the test and the explanatory theory (Shepard 1997; Zumbo 2009).”
• Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. (2009, background): “These contrasting positions regarding how to interpret the sex differences foreshadowed the wider debate in psychology over whether test consequences fall within the realm of validity (e.g., Linn, 1997; Messick, 1989; Popham, 1997; Shepard, 1997).”
• The problem of assessing problem solving: can comparative judgement help? (2015, background): “In recent decades, some theorists have argued that the purpose and impact of an assessment should be considered as central to evaluating its validity (Cronbach, 1988; Messick, 1989; Shepard, 1997).”
• Sources of Validity Evidence for Educational and Psychological Tests (2008, background): “…we must note what seems obvious (and has been already said by others): Consequences of testing are surely important, and the issue ‘‘is not whether consideration of consequences is worthwhile, but whether it should be an integral part of validity theory and practice’’ (Shepard, 1997, p. 5).”