The present paper questions the content validity of the eight creativity-related self-report scales available in PISA 2022's context questionnaire and provides a set of considerations for researchers interested in using these indexes. Specifically, we point out some threats to the content validity of these scales (e.g., "creative thinking…

There is currently a lack of instrumentation with sufficient technical quality focused on the implementation of classroom formative assessment at a grain-size appropriate for the provision of feedback to teachers and program developers. This paper details the development of a validity argument for the High-Impact Classroom Assessment Practices…

The use of assessment results to inform school accountability relies on the assumption that the test design appropriately represents the content and cognitive emphasis reflected in the state's standards. Since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act and the certification of accountability assessments through federal peer review practices,…

This article presents the author's response to Paul E. Newton's paper titled "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" ("Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," 2012). Newton's paper offers an interesting and constructive discussion about how people think about validity. In this reaction, the author comments on some of…

To validate an interpretation or use of test scores is to evaluate the plausibility of the claims based on the scores. An argument-based approach to validation suggests that the claims based on the test scores be outlined as an argument that specifies the inferences and supporting assumptions needed to get from test responses to score-based…

The Berkeley Evaluation and Assessment Research (BEAR) Center at the University of California is developing assessments that are as psychometrically sound as standardized tests and as instructionally relevant as teacher-made, classroom assessments. The BEAR system employs four principles similar to those outlined by the National Research Council:…

Lissitz and Samuelsen (2007) have proposed an operational definition of "validity" that shifts many of the questions traditionally considered under validity to a separate category associated with the utility of test use. Operational definitions support inferences about how well people perform some kind of task or how they respond to some kind of…

Four major problem areas inhibit the standardized assessment of critical thinking (CT): (1) content validity; (2) construct validity; (3) technical jargon; and (4) background knowledge. Practical examples of framing multiple-choice items for assessment are suggested. In the area of content validity, new agreement about the definition of CT now…