Searching for Clarity With Theories of Action and Validity Arguments: The Place of Consequence

• In Event: Roundtable Session 117

Session Submission Type: Roundtable Session

Abstract

Despite the advancements in validity theory provided by the argument-based approach (Kane, 2006), evaluators still struggle with how best to judge the validity of complex assessment systems. Furthermore, while the importance of consequences as a source of validity evidence is generally acknowledged (e.g. AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) questions remain about how to integrate consequences into the validity framework. In response to these challenges, several researchers (e.g., Author, 2010; Author & Author, 2009) have employed both theories of action (e.g., Wholey, 1979), and interpretive/validity arguments to structure evaluations of policy-related assessment instruments; however there is a lack of consensus about the relationship between the two frameworks. This symposium brings together researcher considering these issues at both the theoretical and practical levels.

Sub Unit

• Division D - Measurement and Research Methodologies / Section 1: Educational Measurement, Psychometrics, and Assessment

Chair

• Scott F. Marion, National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc.

Papers

• Building a Conceptual Bridge Between Theories of Action and Interpretative Arguments - Scott F. Marion, National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc.; Marianne Perie, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation; Paul D. Nichols, Pearson

• Initial Interpretative and Evaluative Arguments for the Use of Growth Scores for Teacher Performance Pay - Nathan Dadey, University of Colorado - Boulder; Brian Gong, National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc.

• Theory of Action as a Framework for Evaluating an Assessment Program - Randy E. Bennett, ETS