is used to ascertain whether a certain test achieved the targetedobjectives. It is one of the best criteria for measuring the qualityof a test. A test with a high validity means that the items used havea close link with the intended focus (Cohen et al., 2013). On theother hand, a test with poor validity means that the test cannot beused to measure competency of a certain job or occupation. In suchcases, the test results cannot be relied upon when making decisions.There are two types of validity namely translation andcriteria-related validity. Translation validity requires a gooddefinition of the items checked while criteria-related validityassumes that the operationalization should behave in a certainpredetermined manner (Angelelli & Jacobson 2010).
Translationvalidity occurs in two forms namely the content and face validity.First, content validity is considered the most essential form ofcertification. It refers to a logical process where the relationshipbetween test and task related items are established (Qi, 2011). Thismeans that following the test rules, procedures and specificationsappropriately, gives a higher validity. The other type of translationis the face validity. It involves observing the items and identifyingwhether they are good translation of the conduct. Most people arguethat this is the worst approach to check for validity (Cohen et al.,2013). The evidence given by this validity test is considered weakbecause it is subjective.
Criterion-relatedvalidity is the second type of validity. There is some set criterionon which performance is checked. Prediction is made on how theoperationalization will perform. There are numerous types ofcriterion-related validity including concurrent and predictive amongothers. Concurrent is an important approach for investigating thevalidity of a particular test (Markus & Borsboom 2013). It isconsidered statistical as it uses correlation method in testing forvalidity. The content measured is injected in the examinees bodyduring exams and once the results are out, they are grouped either asmasters or non-masters. The relationship between masters andnon-masters is established to identify the validity of the test.Predictive validity is similar to concurrent validity. However, inpredictive validity, the link between the test scores on futureperformance is determined (Waltzet al., 2010).It helps determine the future status of an examinee of becomingeither a master or a non-master.
Angelelli,C., & Jacobson, H. E. (2010). Testingand assessment in translation and interpreting studies: A call fordialogue between research and practice.Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Pub.
Cohen,R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Sturman, E. D. (2013). PsychologicalTesting and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement[8th Ed.]. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Markus,A, K., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Frontiersof Test Theory: Measurement, Causation, and Meaning.Routledge
Qi,J. (2011). Validationand translation of epsilon-solids.
Waltz,C. F., Strickland, O., & Lenz, E. R. (2010). Measurementin nursing and health research. New York: Springer Pub.