The risk-return trade-off

Performance assessments and cognitive validation of inferences

Datos Bibliográficos

ID5263933
AutoresJacqueline P Leighton (0000-0001-8958-2470, Department of Educational Psychology Faculty of Education, School and Clinical Child Psychology University of Alberta Edmonton Alberta Canada, autor de correspondencia)
Año2019
Volumen89
Número3
Páginas441-455
Fecha de publicación2019-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaBritish Journal of Educational Psychology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0007-0998 • E-ISSN: 2044-8279
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/bjep.12271
PMID30883702
OpenAlexW2921135034
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas6
Referencias citadas22

Background and AimsIn educational measurement, performance assessments occupy a niche for offering a true-to-life format that affords the measurement of high-level cognitive competencies and the evidence to draw inferences about intellectual capital. However, true-to-life formats also introduce myriad complexities and can skew if not outright distort the accuracy of inferences. For validating claims about test-takers from performance assessments, the collection of evidence about response processes is a necessity of sufficient import that the validation process needs to be labelled a cognitive validation to ensure that the cognitive is not forgotten in the logic of the validation process.Analysis and ExampleCognitive validation is described as a three-pronged process of (1) identifying the knowledge, skills, and attributes associated with the intellectual capital of interest, (2) selecting and/or developing tasks to elicit intellectual capital, and (3) collecting substantive empirical evidence of examinee response processes as part of the overall validity argument. This three-pronged process is illustrated using the American Institute of CPA's (2018) practice analysis, task-based simulations (TBSs), and use of think-aloud interviews to evaluate claims.ConclusionsAlthough cognitive laboratories and think alouds are used to measure distinct types of response processes as test-takers interact with performance assessments, both methods are among the best for obtaining direct but differential evidence from test-takers. The labour and cost of collecting this evidence are often not done or not done well by many testing programmes. However, for performance assessments to succeed in measuring what they purport to measure, the investment of cognitive validation must be made

Argument (complex analysis) · Cognition · Cognitive interview · Cognitive psychology · Cognitive test · Empirical evidence · Process (computing) · Task (project management) · Test (biology) · Think aloud protocol · Usability · Applied Psychology · Computer Science · Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation · Psychology · Psychometric Methodologies and Testing · Social Psychology · Student Assessment and Feedback