Abstract
Classical test theory defined the predictive validity of a test as the ordinary Pearson correlation between scores on the test and scores on a validation criterion. For some purposes this definition is satisfactory, but for others it leads to complications, because derivation of familiar equations relating validity and reliability requires an independent assumption of uncorrelated errors of measurement. The present paper proposes an alternate definition of validity that avoids difficulties arising from correlated error scores and is more consistent with standard definitions of true score, error score, and reliability in the classical theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Angoff, W. H.: 1988, ‘Validity: An evolving concept’, in H. Wainer and H. Braun (eds.), Test Validity (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 19–32.
Doob, J. L.: 1953, Stochastic Processes (Wiley, New York).
de Finetti, B.: 1970, Theory of Probability (Wiley, New York).
Guttman, L.: 1945, ‘A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability’, Psychometrika 10, pp. 255–282.
Guttman, L.: 1953, ‘Reliability formulas that do not assume experimental independence’, Psychometrika 18, pp. 225–239.
Hubley, A. M. and B. D. Zumbo: 1996, ‘A dialectic on validity: Where we have been and where we are going’, Journal of General Psychology 123, pp. 207–215.
Kolmogorov, A.: 1933, Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).
Lord, F. M. and M. R. Novick: 1968, Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).
Messick, S.: 1989, ‘Validity’, in R. L. Linn (ed.), Educational Measurement, 3rd ed., pp. 13–103.
Novick, M. R.: 1966, ‘The axioms and principal results of classical test theory’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 3, pp. 1–18.
Rozeboom, W. W.: 1966, Foundations of the Theory of Prediction (Dorsey, Homewood, IL).
Spearman, C.: 1904, ‘The proof and measurement of association between two things’, American Journal of Psychology 15, pp. 72–101.
Steyer, R.: 1988, ‘Conditional expectations: An introduction to the concept and its applications in empirical sciences’, Methodika 2, pp. 53–78.
Steyer, R.: 1989, ‘Models of classical psychometric test theory as stochastic measurement models: Representation, uniqueness, meaningfulness, identifiability, and testability’, Methodika 4, pp. 58–94.
Zimmerman, D. W.: 1975, ‘Probability spaces, Hilbert spaces, and the axioms of test theory’, Psychometrika 40, pp. 395–412.
Zimmerman, D. W.: 1983, ‘The mathematical definition of test validity’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 43, pp. 791–796.
Zimmerman, D. W. and R. H. Williams: 1977, ‘The theory of test validity and correlated errors of measurement’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 16, pp. 135–152.
Zimmerman, D. W. and R. H. Williams: 1980, ‘Is classical test theory “robust” under violation of the assumption of uncorrelated errors?’ Canadian Journal of Psychology 34, pp. 227–237.
Zimmerman, D. W. and R. H. Williams: 1997, ‘Properties of the Spearman correction for attenuation for normal and realistic non-normal distributions’, Applied Psychological Measurement 3, pp. 253–270.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zimmerman, D.W. How Should Classical Test Theory Have Defined Validity?. Social Indicators Research 45, 233–251 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006949915525
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006949915525