[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-320157-105":59,"doc-detail-320157-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","conducting-a-content-validation-study-for-the-california-bar-exam-final-report-october-4-2017","Conducting a Content Validation Study for the California Bar Exam - Final Report - October 4, 2017","","Conducting a content validation study for the California Bar Exam examined how well exam content aligns with cognitive complexity expectations derived from the results of a national job analysis. Subject matter experts used a standardized process to provide judgments on two dimensions: content match and cognitive complexity. The written and Multistate Bar Exam components were evaluated against NCBE 2012 job analysis using an adaptation of Webb’s depth of knowledge framework, with separate consideration of constructed-response scoring rubrics. Results supported content-job alignment and consistent cognitive complexity for the written component.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/conducting-a-content-validation-study-for-the-california-bar-exam-final-report-october-4-2017/320157/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/conducting-a-content-validation-study-for-the-california-bar-exam-final-report-october-4-2017/320157.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Paura","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the purpose of the content validation study for the California Bar Exam?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study evaluated the alignment between exam content and cognitive complexity against the results of a national job analysis, using SME judgments under a standardized process.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How were SMEs asked to judge the examination content?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"SMEs provided judgments on two dimensions: content match and cognitive complexity. Written and MBE areas were evaluated for alignment with NCBE 2012 job analysis using an adaptation of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge framework.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What did the study conclude about content alignment and cognitive complexity?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Summary results indicated that examination content matched job-related expectations for the practice of law, and cognitive complexity for the written component was consistent with DOK-based measurement.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},320157,1790945398,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},13056712833777,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Conducting a Content Validation Study for the California Bar Exam  \nFi n a l R e p or t  \nOctober 4, 2017  \nSubmitted By:  \nChad W. Buckendahl, Ph. D. 702.586.7386  \n[cbuckendahl@acsventures.com](cbuckendahl@acsventures.com)  \n11035 Lavender Hill Drive, Suite 160-433 · Las Vegas, [NV 89135 |](NV 89135 | w w w . a c s v e n t u r e s . c o m)[ w w w . a c s v e n t u r e s . c o m](NV 89135 | w w w . a c s v e n t u r e s . c o m)  \nContents  \nExecutive Summary.................................................................................................................................................3  \nIntroduction ............................................................................................................................................................5  \nCurrent Examination Design ...............................................................................................................................5  \nStudy Purpose .....................................................................................................................................................5  \nProcedures ..............................................................................................................................................................6  \nPanelists ..............................................................................................................................................................6  \nWorkshop Activities ............................................................................................................................................7  \nOrientation ......................................................................................................................................................7  \nContent Validity Judgments ............................................................................................................................8  \nAnalysis and Results ................................................................................................................................................9  \nContent Sampling Across Years ........................................................................................................................12  \nEvaluating the Content Validation Study ..............................................................................................................14  \nProcedural .........................................................................................................................................................15  \nInternal .............................................................................................................................................................. 16  \nExternal ............................................................................................................................................................. 16  \nUtility................................................................................................................................................................. 17  \nProcess Evaluation Results................................................................................................................................18  \nGap Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................................19  \nConclusions and Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................21  \nReferences ............................................................................................................................................................23  \nAppendix A – Panelist Information .......................................................................................................................24  \nAppendix B – Content Validation Materials and Data ..................","cbCaifKZnYm3PBhn","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaifKZnYm3PBhn","pdf",1695983,75,"English","# Executive Summary\n# Introduction\n## Current Examination Design\n## Study Purpose\n## Procedures\n## Panelists\n## Workshop Activities\n# Analysis and Results\n## Content Sampling Across Years\n## Evaluating the Content Validation Study\n## Procedural\n## Internal\n## External\n## Utility\n## Process Evaluation Results\n## Gap Analysis\n# Conclusions and Next Steps\n# References\n# Appendix A – Panelist Information\n# Appendix B – Content Validation Materials and Data\n# Appendix C – Evaluation Comments","[{\"question\":\"What was the purpose of the content validation study for the California Bar Exam?\",\"answer\":\"The study evaluated the alignment between exam content and cognitive complexity against the results of a national job analysis, using SME judgments under a standardized process.\"},{\"question\":\"How were SMEs asked to judge the examination content?\",\"answer\":\"SMEs provided judgments on two dimensions: content match and cognitive complexity. Written and MBE areas were evaluated for alignment with NCBE 2012 job analysis using an adaptation of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge framework.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the study conclude about content alignment and cognitive complexity?\",\"answer\":\"Summary results indicated that examination content matched job-related expectations for the practice of law, and cognitive complexity for the written component was consistent with DOK-based measurement.\"}]","Conducting a Content Validation Study for the California Bar Exam - Final Report - October 4, 2017 | PDF",1789949297,189]