Consider Bornstein's (2011) process focused (PF) Model approach to validity.
Please access the Bornstein (2011) article in Doc Sharing.
Bornstein, R. F. (2011). Toward a process focused model of test score validity: Improving psychological assessment in science and practice. Psychological Assessment, 23 (2), 532-544.
Then consider a construct (psychological variable) of interest in your specialty area, and a test (you can use the Buros website to select one) designed to assess that specific construct.
1.Compare and contrast the PF and traditional models of validity.
2.Describe why Bornstein maintains that it is important to use the PF model of validity.
3.Using the 4 steps outlined by Bornstein how would you assess validity for your chosen construct and selected test to assess that construct?
The assignment should:
•Follow assignment directions (review grading rubric for best results).
•Use correct APA formatting per the APA Publication Manual, 6th Edition.
•Demonstrate college-level communication through the composition of original materials in Standard American English.
•Be written in Standard American English and be clear, specific, and error-free.
•Be a minimum of 5 pages (not including Title Page and Reference List).© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 5:28 am ad1c9bdddf
Bornstein's Process Focused Model of Test-Score Validity
Validity is an important concept across all sciences. It pertains to the extent where a concept or a generalization/conclusion or a measure towards a subject of study is grounded, representative of reality, is justified and logical. If it's a measurement tool, it is valid if it measures what it claims to measure and is accurate in accordance with the subject and the process of measure. In psychometrics, a test is valid if evidence and theory directly support the test scores and its purpose. When researchers seek for sound validity to their study, they seek for the right tests to use, methods that are most applicable to the idea or construct they wish to study, test, explore or measure. In the simplest sense (McLeod, 2013), "a test is valid if it measures what it claims to measure. For example a test of intelligence should measure intelligence and not something else (such as memory)." There are a number of validity 'forms' to consider when determining validity, i.e. external (concerned with impact of settings, people and time constraints) and internal (determination if independent variable manipulation is the cause/not the cause of effects). In the case of Bornstein's Processed-focused model, which seeks to operationalising validity, validity is seen as a tool of study that looks into the reaction and engagement of participants as Bornstein (2011) explains, " The PF model conceptualizes validity as the degree to which respondents can be shown to engage in a predictable set of psychological processes during testing, with those processes dictated a priori by the nature of the instrument(s) used and the context in which testing takes place." For Bornstein, the operationalization of validity is important because for him, psychologists are universally reliant on assessment since it is important for assessment tools to measure what they are supposed to measure. How then is it different from Traditional measures of Validity? First off, Let's discuss the Traditional Measures which include the following (Brualdi, 1999):
1. Criterion-related validity evidence - "demonstrates that test scores are systematically related to one or more outcome criteria."
2. Content-related validity evidence - "looks at the extent to which the test questions represent the skills in the specified subject area."
3. Construct-related validity evidence - "looks at the extent to which the test measures the correct psychological constructs (i.e. Intelligence, self-esteem and creativity)."
There are many critics to the traditional measure of validity including Messick (Brualdi) who claimed that "the traditional conception of validity is fragmented and incomplete especially because ...
The solution provides information, assistance and advice in tackling the task (see above) on the topic of discussing Bornstein's non-traditional PF model of validity. Resources are listed for further exploration of the topic. A word version of the solution is also attached.