Validity

By the far most complex criterion of an effective test-and arguably the most importand
principle is validIty, the extend towich imperence made from essesment results are
appropiate,meaningfull,and usefull in terms of porpuse of the assesment. A valid test of reading
ability actually measures reading ability not 20%20 vision,nor previos knowladge in a subject,
nor some other variable of question rrelevance. To measure writing ability, one make ask the
students to write as many words as they can in 15 minutes, then simply count the word for the
final score. Such a test would be easy to administer(practical)and the scoring quite depandable
(realible). But it would not constitute a valid test of writing ability without some considaration of
ideas,among other factors.
How is the validaty of a test established? There is no final, absolute measure of validity,
but several different kind of evidence may be invoked in support. In some cases, it may be
appropiate to examine the extence to wich a test calls for ferformance that mathes that of the
course or unit of the study being tested. In other cases we may be concerned with how well a test
determines wheater or not students have reached an established set of goals or level of
competence. Statistical correLation with other releted but independent measure is onother widely
accepted from of evidence. Other concers about a tests validity may focus on the consequences
beyond measuring the criteria themselves-of a test or even the test-takers perception of
validity. We will look at the these five types of evidence bellow:
1. content related-evidence
If a test actually samples the subject matter about wich conclusions are to be
drawn, and if it requires the test-takers to nperform the behavior that ios being measured,
it can be claim content -related evidence of validaty. Often popularly referred to as
content validaty. You can usually identify content-related evidance observationally if you
can clearly define the achievment that you are measuring.
Onother way of understanding content validaty is to consider the difference
between direct and indirect testing. Direct testing involves the test-takers in actually
performing the target task. In and indirect test, learners are not performing the task itself
but rather a task that is related in some way. For example if you intent to test the
learners oral production of syllable stress and your task test is to have learners
marks(with writtent accent marks) stressed syllable in a list of written word, you
could,with a stretch of logic, argue that you are indirectly testing their oral production. A

direct test of syllable production would have ton require that students actually produce
target words orally.
The most feasible rule of thumb for echieving content validaty in classroom assesment is
to test performance directly. Consider, for example a listening/speaking class that is doing
a unit on greating and exchanges that includes discourse for asking for personal
information( name, address,hobbies, etc) with some form-focus on the verb to be,
personal pronouns and question formation. The test on the unit should include all of the
actual prformance of listening and speaking.
2. Criterion-Related Evidance
A second form of evidance of the validaty a test may be found in what is called criterionrelated evidance, also referred ton as criterion-related validaty,or the extent to which the
criterion of the test actually been reached.
Criterion related evidance usually falls into one of two categories concurent and
predictive validaty. A test has concurrent validaty if its results are supported by other
concurrent performance beyond assessment itself.forexample the validaty of a high score
on the exam of a foreign language courses will be substantiated by actual profiency in the
language. The predictive validaty of an assessment become importand
In the case of placement tests,admission assessment batteries, language aptitude
test, and the like.the assessment criterion in such cases is not to measure concurrent
ability but to asses (and predict) a test-tskerd likelihood of future succes.
3. Construct-Related Evidance
A third kind of evidance that can support validaty, but that does not play as large a role
for classroom teachers, is construct-related validaty, commonly reffered to as construct
validity. A construct ia any theory, hyphotesis or model that attempts to explain observed
phenomenon in our universe of perception. Constructs may or vmay not be directly or
empirically measured their verification often requaire inferential data. Profiency and
communicative competence are linguistic constructs , self-esteem and motivation are
psyhologycal constructs.

4. Consequncetial Validity
As wall as the above three widely accepted forms of evidance that may be
introduceed to support validay of an assessment, two other categories may be of some
interest and untility in your own quest for validating classroom tests., among others,
underscore the potential importance of the consequence of using an assesment.
Consequance validity uncompassed all the consequence of a test, including such
considarations as its accuracy in measuring intended criteria , its impact on the
preparation of test-takers, its effect on the klearners, and the intended and unintended)
sicial sequences of a tests interpretation and use. In other word consequntial validaty is
How well use of assessment results accomplishes intended purposes and avoids
unintended effect.
5. Face Validaty
An importand facet of cconsequential validaty is the extent to wich students view the
assessment as fair,relevant, and usefull for improving learning. or what is popularly
known as face validity . face validity referst to the degre to wich a test looks right. And
appears to measure the knowladge or abilities it claims to measure, based on the
subjective judgment of the examines who take it, the administrative personnel who
decide in its use, and others psychometrically unsophisticated observers.
Some time student dont what is beingn tested when they takle a test. They may fell,
for a variaty of reason, that a test is not testing what it is supposed to test. Face validaty
means that the student perceive the test to be valid. Face validity It can be empirically
tested by a teacher or even by a testing expert because it is based on the subjective
judgment of the examinees who take it.

Authencity
A fourth major principle of language testing is authenticity, a concept that is a litle
slippery to define, especially whitin yhe artr and science of evaluating and designing tests.

Bachman and Palmer Aunthenticitydefine authenticity as a degree of correspondence of the

chracteristics of a given language test task to the futures of a target language task and then
suggest an agenda for identifiying those target language tasks and for tranforming them in to
valid test items.
In a test authenticity may be present in the following ways:

the language in the test is as natural as possible.

Items are contextualized rather than isolation.
Topict are meaningfull(relevant\, interesting) for the learner.
Some thematic organization to items isprovided, such as through a story line or episode.
Task represent, or closely approximatye, real-world tasks.