To validate an interpretation or use of test scores is to evaluate the plausibility of the claims based on the scores. An argument‐based approach to validation suggests that the claims based on the test scores be outlined as an argument that specifies the inferences and supporting assumptions needed to get from test responses to score‐based interpretations and uses. Validation then can be thought of as an evaluation of the coherence and completeness of this interpretation/use argument and of the plausibility of its inferences and assumptions. In outlining the argument‐based approach to validation, this paper makes eight general points. First, it is the proposed score interpretations and uses that are validated and not the test or the test scores. Second, the validity of a proposed interpretation or use depends on how well the evidence supports the claims being made. Third, more‐ambitious claims require more support than less‐ambitious claims. Fourth, more‐ambitious claims (e.g., construct interpretations) tend to be more useful than less‐ambitious claims, but they are also harder to validate. Fifth, interpretations and uses can change over time in response to new needs and new understandings leading to changes in the evidence needed for validation. Sixth, the evaluation of score uses requires an evaluation of the consequences of the proposed uses; negative consequences can render a score use unacceptable. Seventh, the rejection of a score use does not necessarily invalidate a prior, underlying score interpretation. Eighth, the validation of the score interpretation on which a score use is based does not validate the score use.

This article outlines a general, argument-based approach to validation, develops an interpretive argument for a placement test as an example, and examines some key properties of interpretive arguments. Validity is associated with the interpretation assigned to test scores rather than with the test scores or the test. The interpretation involves an argument leading from the scores to scorebased statements or decisions, and the validity of the interpretation depends on the plausibility of this interpretive argument. The interpretive arguments associated with most test-score interpretations involve multiple inferences and assumptions. An explicit recognition of the inferences and assumptions in the interpretive argument makes it possible to identify the kinds of evidence needed to evaluate the argument. Evidence for the inferences and assumptions in the argument supports the interpretation, and evidence against any part of the argument casts doubt on the interpretation.Validity is associated with the interpretations assigned to test scores rather than with the scores themselves or the test and involves an evaluation of the appropriateness of these interpretations (American Educational Research Association [AERA],

We are at the end of the first century of work on models of educational and psychological measurement and into a new millennium. This certainly seems like an appropriate time for looking backward and looking forward in assessment. Furthermore, a new edition of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999) has been published, and the previous editions of the Standards have served as benchmarks in the development of measurement theory. This backward glance will be just that, a glance. After a brief historical review focusing mainly on construct validity, the current state of validity theory will be summarized, with an emphasis on the role of arguments in validation. Then how an argument‐based approach might be applied will be examined in regards to two issues in validity theory: the distinction between performance‐based and theory‐based interpretations, and the role of consequences in validation.

No abstract

How can the validity of performance assessments be established? What type of logical argumentation is necessary to generalize from a particular assessment to the ability or abilities of interest?