Technical Report - International Military Testing Association

. .
-
/:
i
.
. --_
- _ _. _
.
-. -. .-- . . ..-----...-;-.---.-
_-...II -.--.- -_.. _.
our proposal is, thus, that if we muet hnve a correlation coefficient
:o indicate tha equivolansa of .two forw, that data be accumulated
at the cad of vatloucr portiona of P muroe of ins*.ructioa. ‘fw0 forlao o f
a test could be adAniatcrad :J 80~x3 indi~iduid a8 a pretct6t, t0 othar
Individuals ,durfng the courcc of itwtruction,and to othere at the oad of
. the COUTC~. In this mannat, a correlation coefficient would shw the
true relaL:on.ship between two forms of a test rind would thca r,ot be low
due to restriction of a tent and would thus not be low due to restriction
of range when students arc vcll taught.
Another posrfble manure of rslisbility of a teat would be in terms
of accuracy vith which it vaasures that whfch it is suppoead to umiure.
This ir closc’ly akfn to relevancy azA validity of zmmuremmt and vi11
be discussed in the n)rt rcctioa.
Tart Validity and ValKdation
There are a aumber of crroneoua ccnceptr concerning achievmmznt taatfng
which rhould be clarified. when we speak of t~hievment or proficiency
tedting, we are, in emenee, dircusrfng a criterion. If thfs bo the ease.
vhy do vc have to wonder whether our teat predicts job nucccss? Wfliltl i t
is true that there-are more than just job comgomnta ta the sumesaful
psrfmnce Of 8 job, if WC can 8t loAnt ACcurat6ly nremrure the VariOUII
cmpments of a job, we will have gone a loa vay toward thu actual
devclopnt of a crfterior.
There are those who feel that tsmy echlcvczmnt or pcrfonmncc teat8
must correlate highly with an ultinrte “criterion of job 8uccem 08
dctsradned by supe~~sory ratings.” We have already -de our point
concerning this aspect. If we have szaeured a seczetary’a proficiencies
in trF& of speed aud quafftF of typing, .shorthand, and fLling, we have
already gona a long way towards umaruring her total job performance,
although we nay hma naglectcd to rrrtaaure her initiative and mtivation.
There tvo latter F?;jlzits, we vi11 agree, can better be measured by supervirory
ratinga. We see no need, on the other hand, to validate the other
measures by correlating them wCth � upenrisory evaluation of perforrcancc.
, Ue do aot thfnk that the traditional practice of obtaining item
total test correlations on achievement tests in very worthwhile, Sam?
test developers seem to forget that this practice leads to homogenlafng
the test, A practice which is generally acceptable in aptitude of
parsoumlity test development. In the case of achievement testing, hwever,
this practice has very limited usefulness. He feel that item
validation could better be achieved by admiairtrat