QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY
QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
复制
发表时间：
1975-01-01
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
LAWSHE, CH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
LAWSHE, CH
公民权利立法、合规机构的随之而来的行动以及一些具有里程碑意义的法院案例为内容有效性的应用从学术成绩测试扩展到商业和工业中的人员测试提供了动力。迫于证明有效性的法律要求的压力，以及传统标准相关方法的有限适用性的限制，从业者越来越多地转向内容有效性来寻求解决方案。随着时间的推移，与标准相关的有效性原则和策略已经发展，使得“普遍接受的专业实践”一词有了意义。内容有效性并非如此。该领域相对较新，行业内专业人士所做工作的专有性质，更不用说一直存在的法律含义，可以预见地阻碍了期刊上的发表和专业会议上的正式讨论。关于就业测试内容有效性的文献很少，而且现有的大部分文献都是来自公务员委员会。公务员的选拔，由于其资格清单和“及格与不及格”的概念，一直是一种特殊情况，向行业转移的能力有限。鉴于目前专业实践中缺乏共识，从业者将越来越多地以对手的角色作为原告和被告的专家证人。在专业人士就什么构成可接受的内容有效性证据达成某种程度的共识之前，法院和执法机构将面临着发挥主要决定作用的严重风险。希望本文能够通过帮助锐化内容，为改善这种状况 (1) 做出微薄的贡献
CIVIL rights legislation, the attendant actions of compliance agencies, and a few landmark court cases have provided the impetus for the extension of the application of content validity from academic achievement testing to personnel testing in business and industry. Pressed by the legal requirement to demonstrate validity, and constrained by the limited applicability of traditional criterion-related methodologies, practitioners are more and more turning to content validity in search of solutions. Over time, criterion-related validity principles and strategies have evolved so that the term," commonly accepted professional practice" has meaning. Such is not the case with content validity. The relative newness of the field, the proprietary nature of work done by professionals practicing in industry, to say nothing of the ever present legal overtones, have predictably militated against publication in the journals and formal discussion at professional meetings. There is a paucity of literature on content validity in employment testing, and much of what exists has eminated from civil service commissions. The selectipn of civil servants, with its eligibility lists and" pass-fail" concepts, has always been something of a special case with limited transferability to industry. Given the current lack of consensus in professional practice, practitioners will more and more face each other in adversary roles as expert witnesses for plaintiff and defendant. Until professionals reach some degree of concurrence regarding what constitutes acceptable evidence of content validity, there is a serious risk that the courts and the enforcement agencies will play the major determining role. Hopefully, this paper will modestly contribute to the improvement of this state of affairs (1) by helping sharpen the content