Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i39MRom04417; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 18:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 18:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <8EF4BFCA-8A74-11D8-9647-00039381D39E@theworld.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: David Rosen <DJRosen@theworld.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:493] Re: why "valid and reliable"? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 1135 Lines: 25 Eileen, On Friday, April 9, 2004, you wrote: > As I read the messages concerning "good" assessment and training in > good assessment, one unexamined assumption strikes me. Why do we think > assessment has to be "valid and reliable" to be good? Why are those > the criteria we use? If an assessment is valid it measures what it says it measures, not something else. If it is reliable, it does that the same way each time it is used. A typical example of an unreliable assessment is a scale that gives you a different weight for the same object each time you weigh it even though the weight hasn't actually changed. Validity and reliability are good standards for any assessment whether it is formal or informal, published or teacher-made. Sometimes, however, they are criteria which are difficult to meet because an investment of resources is needed to make valid and reliable assessments (and for their administration) and this is hard to come by. The problem, as I see it, is not the criteria of validity and reliability, but getting the resources to meet these standards. David J. Rosen djrosen@comcast.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:14 EST