CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

A validity framework for accountability: educational measurement and language testing

Hoeve, Karen B.·2022·Language Testing in Asia
DOI 10.1186/s40468-021-00153-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

High stakes test-based accountability systems primarily rely on aggregates and derivatives of scores from tests that were originally developed to measure individual student proficiency in subject areas such as math, reading/language arts, and now English language proficiency. Current validity models do not explicitly address this use of aggregate scores in accountability. Historically, language testing and educational measurement have been related, yet parallel disciplines. Accountability policies have increasingly forced these disciplines under one umbrella with a common system of rewards and sanctions based on results achieved. Therefore, a validity framework, as suggested in the present paper, is relevant to both.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40468-021-00153-2

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 3

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
  2. Bennett, R. (2015). Validity considerations for next-generation assessment: a “theory of action” perspective. Paper presented at National Conference on Student Assessment. San Diego: ETS (Educational Testing Service
  3. Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2009). The intersection of test impact, validation, and educational reform policy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090102. · DOI
  4. Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2016). Validity theory: reform policies, accountability testing, and consequences. Language Testing, 33(4), 453–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215593312. · DOI
  5. Chalhoub-Deville, M. B. (2020). Toward a model of validity in accountability testing. In Assessing English language proficiency in US K–12 schools. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491689-13. · DOI
  6. Chapelle, C. A. (2012). Validity argument for language assessment: the framework is simple …. Language Testing, 29, 19–27. · DOI
  7. Cizek, G. J. (2016). Validating test score meaning and defending test score use: different aims, different methods. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1063479. · DOI
  8. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2004). A framework for examining validity in state accountability systems. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
  9. Embretson, S. (2008). Construct validity: a universal validity system [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved 2 July 2019 from https://marces.org/conference/validity/8Susan%20Embretson.ppt
  10. Embretson, S. (2017). An integrative framework for construct validity. In The Handbook of Cognition and Assessment, Frameworks, Methodologies and Applications, (pp. 102–123).
  11. Embretson, S. E. (2007). Construct validity: a universal validity system or just another test evaluation procedure? Educational Researcher, 36(8), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07311600. · DOI
  12. Ferrara, S., Lai, E., Reilly, A., & Nichols, P. D. (2017). Principled approaches to assessment design, development, and implementation. In The Handbook of Cognition and Assessment, Frameworks, Methodologies and Applications, (pp. 41–74). · DOI
  13. Im, G. H., Shin, D., & Cheng, L. (2019). Critical review of validation models and practices in language testing: their limitations and future directions for validation research. Language Testing in Asia, 9(14) Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0089-4. · DOI
  14. Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational Measurement, (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport: Greenwood Publishing.
  15. Kane, M. (2010). Validity and fairness. Language Testing, 27(2), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349467. · DOI
  16. Kane, M. (2012). Validating score interpretations and uses. Language Testing, 29(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211417210. · DOI
  17. Kane, M. (2013). Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Kane, M. (2015). Validation strategies: delineating and validating proposed interpretations and uses of test scores. In Handbook of test development, (pp. 80–96). Routledge.
  19. Kane, M. (2020). Validity studies commentary, educational assessment, 25(1), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.1702465. · DOI
  20. Lane, S. (1999). Validity evidence for assessments. Reidy interactive lecture series. Pittsburgh: University Pittsburgh.
  21. Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00082.x. · DOI
  22. Lissitz, R. W., & Samuelsen, K. (2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher, 36(8), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07311286. · DOI
  23. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement, (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.
  24. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1, 3–7.
  25. Moss, P. (2013). Validity in action: lessons from studies of data use. Journal of Educational Measurement, 501(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12003. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Newton, P., & Shaw, S. (2014). Validity in educational and psychological assessment. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288856. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Plake, B. S., Huff, K., Reshetar, R. R., Kaliski, P., & Chajewski, M. (2015). Validity in the making: From evidenced-centered design to the validations of the interpretations of test performance. In M. Faulkner-Bond, & C. Wells (Eds.), Educational measurement: Foundations to future, (pp. 62–73).
  28. Riconscente, M. M., Mislevy, R. J., & Corrigan, S. (2016). Evidence-centered design. In S. Lane, M. R. Raymond, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development, (pp. 40–63). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
  29. Shepard, L. A. (2016). Evaluating test validity: reprise and progress. In Assessment in Education, 23, 2, 268-280. Amherst: Center for Educational Assessment, University of Massachusetts.
  30. Sireci, S., & Faulkner-Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema, 26(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.256. · DOI
  31. Sireci, S. G., & Forte, E. (2012). Informing in the information age: how to communicate measurement concepts to education policy makers. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice, 31(2), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2012.00232.x. · DOI
  32. Sireci, S. G., & Soto, A. (2016). Test validation for 21st-century educational assessments. In Meeting the challenges to measurement in an era of accountability. Routledge.
  33. Smith, W. C., & Benavot, A. (2019). Improving accountability in education: the importance of structured democratic voice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09599-9. · DOI
  34. Wilson, M. (2008). Constructing measures: an item response modeling approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Metadata

Authors
Hoeve, K. B.
Venue
Language Testing in Asia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-02-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
ISSN
2229-0443
DOI
10.1186/s40468-021-00153-2
Cited by
3
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A validity framework for accountability: educational measurement and language testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40468-021-00153-2
The paper
Hoeve, K. B. (2022). A validity framework for accountability: educational measurement and language testing. Language Testing in Asia. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00153-2