[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-620839-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-620839-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","conemporary-validity-theory-and-the-assessment-context-in-england","CONEMPORARY VALIDITY THEORY AND THE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT IN ENGLAND","","The work traces the development of validity theory from the idea that “a test measures what it says it measures” to content, criterion, construct, and especially unitary construct validity. It contrasts how the United States’ high-stakes testing publishers embrace modern validity concepts with how English qualifications such as GCSE and GCE rely mainly on content validity and reliability. It argues that English general qualifications need explicit validity evaluation during specification development. It also discusses evidence types for addressing validity threats and the need for coordinated validation responsibility beyond awarding bodies, involving regulators.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/conemporary-validity-theory-and-the-assessment-context-in-england/620839/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/conemporary-validity-theory-and-the-assessment-context-in-england/620839.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Alex Sinclair","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":22},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"How does the document describe the evolution of validity theory?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"It describes validity as moving from the simple notion of measuring what a test claims to measure toward multiple types (content, criterion, construct) and finally toward a unitary concept centered on construct validity.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"What contrast does the document draw between the United States and England in validity usage?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It states that U.S. high-stakes testing publishers largely adopt modern validity concepts, while English awarding bodies for general qualifications rely more heavily on content validity and reliability, with less explicit validity emphasis.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"Why does the document argue that validity responsibility should not rest only with awarding bodies?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Because regulators’ involvement in specification development means validity concerns cannot be handled exclusively by awarding bodies; a coordinated approach to validation is required.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},620839,1792590329,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,94,99,104,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},70,"exam",{"id":95,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":100,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":22,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1099523882182,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","CONTEMPORARY VALIDITY THEORY AND THE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT IN ENGLAND  \nABSTRACT  \nThe concept of validity developed considerably during the last half of the twentieth century, from essentially meaning that “a test measures what it says it measures”, through multiple types of validity – content, criterion, and construct – to a multifaceted but essentially unitary concept of construct validity. The publishers of high stakes tests in the United States have, for the most part, embraced the modern concept of validity, whilst those responsible for general qualifications in England, such as the GCSE and GCE, appear not to have ventured far beyond evaluating content validity and reliability in ensuring the quality of these tests. These differences may be attributable to differences between the two cultures in the forms of tests and the personnel traditionally responsible for their construction. Nonetheless, the unitary concept of validity demands forms of evidence to counter threats to validity that content validity and reliability do not and, as such, the quality of English general qualifications could benefit from explicit evaluation of validity, especially during specification (syllabus) development. The validity literature contains examples of the types of evidence required to satisfy validity concerns and guidance on how to gather it, on which awarding bodies may draw. The involvement of the regulatory authorities in specification development means, however, that responsibility for validity cannot lie exclusively with the awarding bodies, and a coordinated approach to validation would be required.  \nNeil Stringer  \nINTRODUCTION  \nIn its seventy-two pages, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) Code of Practice for GCSE, GCE, and AEA contains only one occurrence of the word validity, which is in the context of testing accommodations1 : “the awarding body must ensure that its access arrangements…maintain the relevance, validity, reliability, comparability and integrity of the assessment” (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2008a, p. 41) . The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance’s (AQA) Question Paper Preparation Procedure Guidance File (Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, 2007), which comprises two hundred and forty-two pages, contains only four occurrences of the word validity. Two of these occurrences are in the glossary, which defines validity as “the fitness for purpose of an assessment tool or scheme”, whilst the other occurrences are passing references in specific contexts to the validity of particular tasks or response modes.  \nSpecification development is the stage at which the content of the specification (syllabus) is determined and at which the scheme of assessment is devised and specimen question papers are written, yet AQA’s generic Specification Development Procedure Guidance File (Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, 2005) does not contain the word validity at all. The  \n1 Testing accommodations are changes made in the administration of a test for candidates with particular requirements to enable them to have access to fair assessment and to demonstrate attainment.  \nSpecification Development Procedure Guidance File GCE 2006/7 for teaching from September 2008 (Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, 2006) contains four instances, not including those already mentioned in the question paper guidance file, the most pertinent, though unsubstantiated, being:  \nObjective Test Questions (OTQs) have some advantages…It is possible to test a wide range of abilities and subject matter in a relatively small amount of examination time and thus objective tests carry a high degree of validity in terms of the relationship between the examination and the specification. (p. 18)  \nThere is more frequent use of the term valid in these documents, but little or no reference to validity and what constitutes it. For example, “the regulators require that the awarding bodies are committed to the following principles t","cbCaiprGCMN1Fy04","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiprGCMN1Fy04","pdf",613984,22,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n## The word “validity” in key English documents\n## Validity in specification development\n# The concept of validity\n## Thyne’s conditions of validity","[{\"question\":\"How does the document describe the evolution of validity theory?\",\"answer\":\"It describes validity as moving from the simple notion of measuring what a test claims to measure toward multiple types (content, criterion, construct) and finally toward a unitary concept centered on construct validity.\"},{\"question\":\"What contrast does the document draw between the United States and England in validity usage?\",\"answer\":\"It states that U.S. high-stakes testing publishers largely adopt modern validity concepts, while English awarding bodies for general qualifications rely more heavily on content validity and reliability, with less explicit validity emphasis.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the document argue that validity responsibility should not rest only with awarding bodies?\",\"answer\":\"Because regulators’ involvement in specification development means validity concerns cannot be handled exclusively by awarding bodies; a coordinated approach to validation is required.\"}]","CONEMPORARY VALIDITY THEORY AND THE ASSESSMENT CONTEXT IN ENGLAND | PDF",1792464668,55]