The risk–return trade‐off: Performance assessments and cognitive validation of inferences

Abstract

Background and Aims In educational measurement, performance assessments occupy a niche for offering a true‐to‐life format that affords the measurement of high‐level cognitive competencies and the evidence to draw inferences about intellectual capital. However, true‐to‐life formats also introduce myriad complexities and can skew if not outright distort the accuracy of inferences. For validating claims about test‐takers from performance assessments, the collection of evidence about response processes is a necessity of sufficient import that the validation process needs to be labelled a cognitive validation to ensure that the cognitive is not forgotten in the logic of the validation process. Analysis and Example Cognitive validation is described as a three‐pronged process of (1) identifying the knowledge, skills, and attributes associated with the intellectual capital of interest, (2) selecting and/or developing tasks to elicit intellectual capital, and (3) collecting substantive empirical evidence of examinee response processes as part of the overall validity argument. This three‐pronged process is illustrated using the American Institute of CPA's (2018) practice analysis, task‐based simulations (TBSs), and use of think‐aloud interviews to evaluate claims. Conclusions Although cognitive laboratories and think alouds are used to measure distinct types of response processes as test‐takers interact with performance assessments, both methods are among the best for obtaining direct but differential evidence from test‐takers. The labour and cost of collecting this evidence are often not done or not done well by many testing programmes. However, for performance assessments to succeed in measuring what they purport to measure, the investment of cognitive validation must be made.

Performance Assessment of Critical Thinking: Conceptualization, Design, and Implementation

“…Following the ECD principles in designing and developing the PT, as well as the associated scoring rubrics, constitutes an important type of evidence. Further, as Leighton (2019) argues, response process data ("cognitive validity") is needed to validate claims regarding the cognitive complexity of PT's. Relevant data can be obtained through cognitive laboratory studies involving methods such as think aloud protocols or eye-tracking.…”

“…With respect to data collection, there is a need for sufficient data to support psychometric analysis of student responses, especially the relationships among the different components of the scoring rubric, as this would inform both task development and response evaluation . In addition, more intensive study of response processes through cognitive laboratories and the like are needed to strengthen the evidential argument for construct validity (Leighton, 2019). We are currently conducting empirical studies, collecting data on both iPAL PT's and other measures of CT.…”

Linguistic, Contextual, and Experiential Equivalence Issues in the Adaptation of a Performance-Based Assessment of Generic Skills in Higher Education

“…Participation in the research was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from the participants. The cognitive labs made it possible to collect authentic data on participants' ongoing thinking processes and behaviors while they were working on a task (van Someren et al, 1994;Leighton, 2017, Leighton, 2019. The data were collected individually from all the participants by following a similar procedure.…”

Exploring internal structure of a performance-based critical thinking assessment for new students in higher education

“…Qualitative methods such as cognitive labs (e.g. Hyytinen et al 2020Hyytinen et al , 2014Leighton 2019;Messick 1995), and quantitative methods such as factor analyses (e.g. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al 2019;Davey et al 2015) are needed in order to understand what an assessment is telling us about the students' critical thinking.…”