DSpace at VNU: A Concept of validity

VNU JOURNAL 0F SCIENCE. Foreign Languages, T XIX, N.4. 2003

A CONCEPT OF VALIDITY
To Thi T h u H u o n g 1'1
L>1 NSiitisfied vvith face validity. vvhich “is

Validity. .1 Central concept m testing in
genei iỉl. h;is been .» Central concern of language
testing (Anastasi 1988; Angoff 1988. Baker
1989. Hughes
Messick \L)W: Davics
1990; Bachm.in 1W0; Alderson ct a l . 1995;
Bachman and Palmer 19%). Truditionally. lesi
validiụ is dcfined iis ‘the fidclity with vvhich ii

the merc appcarancc of Vỉilklity lo the
metrically
IÌỈIÌIVC observer" (Slevenson
I9 8 5 R III). Wuiner and Biaun (1988)
reduced ihe nuniber ĨO the “ỉroika” of conteni
validity. criterion validity (consisiing of
concurrent and predictivc validity) and
construct validity
The division of validity into differcnt
t\pes lcd to conlroversy on the importancc of
these lypes (Morrow 1981; Savignon 1983;
Stevenson ll)K5a. 1985b: Anaslasi 19XS;
Messick 19H9. Davics 1990) Communicatỉve
theorists argued that content. face, and possiblv
predictivc validity were !hc most importan!
types

( M o it o w
1981:
Hughes
19X9).
Supporters C)f psychometrics (Locvingcr 1957;
Messick 1975. Tenopyr 1977; Guion 1977, all
cited II) Angoff 1988: 28; Saviunon 19X3;
\Vood 1991) claimed that only concurrent
and
construct
validity
wcrc
vvorth
considering in lest validution. tthich IS ihe
proccss of collcctinc diffcrcnl kinds of
evidencc to Mippnit tho mterprelation and Use
of tcsl SCOICS for a particular purpose in
ordci to cstiihlish a tcst s validilv

meusuíYs w h.it It purports to mcaMire’' (Garctt,
1 9 4 7 . 394 citcđ in Angoff. 1988: 19). The
tiaditional VICU considered validity as a
quality of ihc mcasuring instrunicni In this
vie\v. langiKiỉie lcsi valiđity Is coinmonly
deemed lo consisl of five different Ivpcs of
vaỉidily. defincd b\ Morrou (1981: 13,
emphasis ỉidded) as follows:
Facc The tesl looks like A gocxi one
Im ỉhc í'\r.\ (>! Lix /)(*(>p!e\.
Contcni The lesí accurately reflects the

syỉlabus on vvhich li is based.
Predictive The tes! accurately predicts
peiformance 11 e is lìnln liỉtve ()f ílỉi' samc I Oìistìiu /|
in some subscqueiil Mlualion.
Conciirrent
The Icsi givcs similiir
rcsulis lo existing lcsl Ịi.e. niiUỉsitrrs the
sanie I d n s t r m ỉ I vvhich have alrcndy bccn
valuỉalccl

The

rcccnt

Iiend

in

languagc

tcsiing

pri nc ipl cs ot .1 Viilkỉ i hcory o f í or ci gn Innguagc

discussions IS lo considcr vulidily ;is ;i umlarv
concepl vviih dilTeient lypcs of validity ;is

lcammi!

diffcrcnt aspccls of valiciity (M cssick

Coiỉsinict The ỉesi reílccis .icciuatcl) Ihe

Bachman

M o r ro v v s d c í i m l i o n o f p r c d ic t iv c v a lid itx

docs

Iiot

cl.»nfy

vvhelhcr

thc

kiiKÌ

1995. Bikchm;ui

of

1996).

períoiniiincc thc tcst should prcdict IS a
lancuỉigc períoim.mce. or anothcr períbrmanec
involvincc. boih laneuaee
c. w and non-hineuaee
c c

íactors
Dr

D epartm ent of English and

1990. \Vood

Palmer

1996; McNam;ir;i

Within ihc ncw pcrccption, constiuct

validil\ is ;il ihc centrc (Mcssick
enriched wiih Ivvo n e u
rcsponsc

and

and is

aspccỉs of validity

coĩisequcĩìtiaỉ

Americian Language and Culture C ollege of Poreign Languages

24

1W9.

199; Aldcrson c! al

or

VNU

uashback


\ t •Illl l*Ị>ĩ «*l v.llulltv

iB.Khm.in

&

l*;ilmci

\1i V im . 11.1 1'^Kì 22-23»

n\\vs

*mloi ni.Hion on

ICNỊH)llds

lo

lcsi

|Wf>

Rcsịhmỉsc \.iliJ it\

«111

lum

Ilciììs

O v e i fhc VCÌIIS. \;iIiclitN liiis c v o lv e d Irom

2l>-35.

the c o n c ep t o í ‘ĩcst lịu .ih ụ

In the con cv pt oi

mdivuliul

ỉhc usc. ihc m terpiet.ilion OI llic inỉVicnccs

. 11

111.ulc lYoni tcsi stoics (HcnniML1 l l)S7 -\fi.isi.INI

« A L Ỉ C I SOI I

cl

|W S .

1W5 176 ì

\ i i 2 ofl

l^xs.

Mcssick

1C>N4J

IW6

s o u . ll n u is e iỊ iic n c e s o t (Ik* p r o p o s c ii | lc s l | IINC

\ldcrson Cl al. I W , Rachm.m |W(L H.ichin:m
\
PalììKM IW 6 )
McsmcK c \p L m io J thc

tind o l

ic.isons foi ihis ch.m ư c .IS fi»lk)\Ns

(o n se q u a i ii .i l

thc

lcsluiL*’

Viilidii\

ihc poỊcnlKil

.K lii.ll c o n s e q i i o n c e s

(M essick

tcstini*.

|S

I

ot
lu

M )

couNCciucnii.il

the

validilx.

applicd

siibsumine

\ \ ; i > h h a c k ( d c ỉ m c i l ;is i h c c í l c c i s o l asNCNNiìicni
m siium cnts

OM

bclicfs (C o h cil
IS t h e

m ipact

|W 4
of

and c u m c u lu m .
Iife

educ.iiional

ch;m ccN

41

\)

; i ncl

te;ichm L\

Icarumt!

OI1 * ĩ h c t c ; i e h i n i : n u i c i u l s .

of

tcsi

Ctiudid;ilCN

mtciCNied st.iko hokiciN
23)

pi.iU iccs

a s o n e 1 )| I t s a s p e c i s ,

laiỉiiuatic

or

the

to

cotỉsequcnti.il

hcaiimn o f
1 I9W>)

inipacl’

.11

unticr

thc

Biichm.m ;ind Piilmei
At

ihe micro IcncI. mdivklu.iỈN aic .itTcclcd h\

.1

The iiKỈividuals m d u d e lost

tiikcis. teM uscis. đecision makcis usnití tcst
scorcs.

leachers.

tesi

I.ikcrs’

tnends

rclalivcs and íutiiie classmaĩcs. etc

.IIKÌ

At ỉhc

m.icio lcvcl, ihc sociclv and thc C(.i uc.iiion.il
s y s i c m iirc a f f c c l c J
VICVV. ' v i r t n a l l )
iiKỈiiocllv

cvcry

alĩccicd

T T i u s . I . i k m i ! .1 s v s t c m ; i l i t
m e m b e r o f ih e NVstem
b\

llic

UNO

ot

thc

IS

tcsl’

consccịiienti.il v;ilidiiN IS much broiidci than
vvashhack

v.ỉlidilN.

\vhich

often

takcs

to

scorc

inlcrpret;ilion. circ suhsumed imdci thc nihrK
()f

construct-rchitcd

cvidencc

^ct.

considcralions uf Sịvcilic contcnl tinci sclcclcd
crileriii resurlacc. IM ađdilion !o llìc ecncral
consliuct \;»lidil\ of Ntoie mcaniti^. \vhcnc\ci
the tcs! IS uscd loi .1 particiilai .ipplicd purposc

In |usiif\ inc tcst usc diMclini! v.tlidit) cvulcncc

bolh micin .I!KÌ macro levcK

paiticuhu Icsĩ Iisc

contrihulorv

into thrct* cal c&ori cs ĩha! aie then l ìì ci gc d into

coneeplu.iỉised Ihe iĩTìpaci of lest usc as

opciatini!

hcinỉ!

| 4M)(S


v;tỉidil>

cvidencc.

‘o i h c i

M.tchm.m .md 1’alnici ( ỉ l) % ) prcícrrcd lo

rclci

In ÌÍCIICI.ÍỈ. conlciì! ;inJ C IItcn on-rclatcd

LmiỉU.iưc

into

accouni mainly lest lakcrs .md lciichcis

OIÌC, tiocs

111)1

illuminalc íhcsc miitiiccs Ifi the

rolcs of spcciỉic contcni and Ciitcrion - ickilcđ
evidencc
W hal

as ađjuncis

IN neccicd

lo conMruci

is ;i wav

Vỉilidity

o f dÌMtlmp

and

comhmiML* vtiỉiditv cMilcncc (li.It forcst;ills tmduc

rch.ince

OI1 Ncỉeclcd

lonn

o f cvidcncc.

ihai

hi^ihlinhls ihc iniport.in! thoiiỉỉh Mihsidi.UA rolc of

s|X‘cific coulcnt and ciilci ion * ivliitctl evidcncc in
suppon of construct vaỉkiilN III tcstiniỉ
applicanons.

and

thai

fonnally

iiìcludcs

consiclcmĩKni ()f Viihic miplic.itions ;iik1 soci.ll
coiìsctỊUcnccs inlo thc
(Yỉimcvvork
(Mcssick I9S9 20)
DiíTcrcnl *‘tvpcs“ <)f validily
;uv ncm

considcrcd ;is diffcrcnl "niethotis** oí asscssiug
\ . | | | J | | \ *thc morc dilìcicnl “ tvpcs** of valiciit)
lliiỉ! Ciin be csiuMished. ihe bciici. aĩicl thc moic
cvidcncc thai can be uathered for an\ one
" I \ p c ” of valitỉily thc bcttci' (Aỉtỉeison cl »il

IWS 17 h
KKKKKKNÍKS

1
'2.

Anastỉisi. A . P s x ch o lo g ỉcci/ tc s tin g . Sixth iHỈitioĩì, Novv York, M acnull an. 11ÍSS
AngoíT, \v .li (198S) V.-iỊidity :ìĩì evolving concepl In Wainor. II & Br au n 11.1 íods) Te s ỉ
v a lid it \
llillsdỉili1. NV\v Jc»rsov. I^nvrcnce Krlbnum
H n c h n ia n . ịs F n n (ln m r n ta l vonsĩcicrattnns in la n ịỉu a g e testm ỊỊ. O xford U m v e r s ity IV rss. 1 ! » .

I (IỊ) ( 1' KhtntỊlth

\ \ ,’ \II >■■!< ỉ \J\ So 4,200.1


To T hi Thu H u o n g

I
r».

().
7

s

ttarhmnn. lé F.& Palnior. A . LanguaỊĩư te&ting in practice: Desigmnịỉ and developing useful
Ỉangucỉịie test. Oxlonl. ()xford ưmversity Press. 191H)
Diivios. A . Principles o f ÌanfỊuage testing, Camhridge. Hnsil B lack\vrll. 1990
Linn. K L
. EducatmnnỊ mcasurcment. Third eclihon. NVw York. Maoniiỉlan. 1989.
M< N .im .u
T M casurin# svcond InnậỊuage performonce. Loiulon. Longman. 1996
Mes>irk. s \ . Validitv In Linn. K L.(od) Educational Measurcment (3rđ ed ). NVw York.
.ằ .

M.irmilLm. líỉSi*

9

Messirk. s A . The once and futurv issues of validity. Assessing the meaning and
(•()iis('(|ucncr.s of m c i i s u m n e n t . in VVainer. ỉ ỉ . B raun. I I I . (eds). Tcst V a lĩdity, H illsdale.

NV\\ -liTM-v LíUvrcnce Krlhnum. 1988
10
I) K . (108;*)!)) Pop vciluỉĩtx a n d pcrformancc testmg. ỉII Lee Pt nl. 111-118. 1985.
11. \Vainer. II . Braun. II 1 . (eds) Test valỉdity, Hilisdalo. New Jersey. Lawrence
Krlbaum. l i ‘S8.

TAP CHI KHOA HOCĐHQGHN NGOAI NGỬ ĩ XIX Sò 4 2003

MỘT CÁCH HIẾU VẾ ĐỘ GIÁ TRỊ
TS. Tỏ Thị T hu H ướng

Khoa Ngón nịt ừ & Vãn hoa Anh - Mỹ
Trường Dại học Ngoại ngừ, ĐHQG Ha Nội
Bài viết này mỏ ttra (lánlì giá nâng lực ngôn ngừ nói riêng. Trước đây độ giá trị của một bài kiểm tra
dược quan niệm một các h truyền thống là độ trung thực mà bài đó do được cái nỏ cần do
Vói nhiều loại (lộ giá trị khác nhau như giá trị be mặt. nội (lung, tiên đoán, tướng dương
và khái niệm. Xu hướng hiộn nav trong kiểm tra dành giá n ă n g lực ngôn ngữ coi độ giá
trị là một khái niệm đổng nhất với các loại độ giá trị truyền thông là các khía cạnh
k h á c n h a u c ủ a (lộ giá trị

ki

1*IỊì H iỊ 1 \

\ t ụun n\*ừ I \ ỉ \ Sõ"J.2tMìi