Abstract
In this note I comment briefly on Keith Markus's illuminating article on “Science, measurement, and validity: Is completion of Samuel Messick's synthesis possible?” Markus's analysis bears directly on the controversial status of the consequential basis of test validity in relation to the more traditional evidential basis. After addressing some key points in his argument, I then comment more generally on sources of the controversy over the claim that empirical consequences of test interpretation and use constitute validity evidence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education: 1985, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC).
Brandon, P. R.: 1996, Discussion of the Consequential Aspect of Validity. AERAD list on the Internet.
Cronbach, L. J.: 1971, ‘Test validity’, in R. L. Thorndike (ed.), Educational Measurement, 2nd ed. (American Council on Education, Washington, DC), pp. 430–507.
Cronbach, L. J. and P. E. Meehl: 1955, ‘Construct validity in psychological tests’, Psychological Bulletin 52, pp. 281–302.
Frederiksen, N.: 1984, ‘The real test bias. Influences of testing on teaching and learning’, American Psychologist 39(3), pp. 193–202.
Kohlberg, L.: 1964, ‘Development of moral character and moral ideology’, in M. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (eds.), Review of Child Development Research 1, pp. 383–431.
Linn, R. L.: 1997, ‘Evaluating the validity of assessments: The consequences of use’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16(2), pp. 14–16.
Loevinger, J.: 1957, ‘Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory’, Psychological Reports 3, pp. 635–694 (Monograph Supp. 9).
Loevinger, J.: 1966, ‘The meaning and measurement of ego development’, American Psychologist 21, pp. 195–206.
Mehrens, W. A.: 1997, ‘The consequences of consequential validity’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16(2), pp. 16–18.
Messick, S.: 1989, ‘Validity’, in R. L. Linn (ed.), Educational Measurement (Macmillan, New York), pp. 13–103.
Messick, S.: 1994, ‘The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments’, Educational Researcher 23(2), pp. 13–23.
Messick, S.: 1996, ‘Validity and washback in language testing’, Language Testing 13(3), pp. 241–256.
Piaget, J.: 1932, 'The Moral Judgment of the Child (Kegan Paul, London).
Popham, W. J.: 1997, ‘Consequential validity: Right concern — wrong concept’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16(2), pp. 9–13.
Shepard, L. A.: 1997, ‘The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16(2), pp. 5–8, 13, 24.
Tenopyr, M. L.: 1996, April, Construct-Consequences Confusion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
Wiley, D. E.: 1991, ‘Test validity and invalidity reconsidered’, in R. E. Snow and D. E. Wiley (eds.), Improving Inquiry in the Social Sciences: A Volume in Honor of Lee J. Cronbach (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ), (pp. 75–107).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Messick, S. Test Validity: A Matter of Consequence. Social Indicators Research 45, 35–44 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006964925094
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006964925094