Six tips to increase content validity in competence tests and exams

Posted by John Kleeman

Content validity is one of the most important criteria on which to judge a test, exam or quiz. This blog post explains what content validity is, why it matters and how to increase it when using competence tests and exams within regulatory compliance and other work settings.

What is content validity?

An assessment has content validity if the content of the assessment matches what is being measured, i.e. it reflects the knowledge/skills required to do a job or demonstrate that the participant grasps course content sufficiently.

Content validity is often measured by having a group of subject matter experts (SMEs) verify that the test measures what it is supposed to measure.

Why does content validity matter?

If an assessment doesn’t have content validity, then the test isn’t actually testing what it seeks to, or it misses important aspects of job skills.

Would you want to fly in a plane, where the pilot knows how to take off but not land? Obviously not! Assessments for airline pilots take account all job functions including landing in emergency scenarios.

Similarly, if you are testing your employees to ensure competence for regulatory compliance purposes, or before you let them sell your products, you need to ensure the tests have content validity – that is to say they cover the job skills required.

Additionally to these common sense reasons, if you use an assessment without content validity to make decisions about people, you could face a lawsuit. See this blog post which describes a US lawsuit where a court ruled that because a policing test didn’t match the job skills, it couldn’t be used fairly for promotion purposes.

How can you increase content validity?

Here are some tips to get you started. For a deeper dive, Questionmark has several white papers that will help, and I also recommend Shrock & Coscarelli’s excellent book “Criterion-Referenced Test Development”.

  1. Conduct a job task analysis (JTA). A JTA is a survey which asks experts in the job role what tasks are important and how often they are done. A JTA gives you the information to define assessment topics in terms of what the job needs. Questionmark has a JTA question type which makes it easy to deliver and report on JTAs.
  2. Define the topics in the test before authoring. Use an item bank to store questions, and define the topics carefully before you start writing the questions. See Know what your questions are about before you deliver the test for some more reasoning on this.
  3. You can poll subject matter experts to check content validity for an existing test. If you have an existing assessment, and you need to check its content validity, get a panel of SMEs (experts) to rate each question as to whether it is  “essential,” “useful, but not essential,” or “not necessary” to the performance of what is being measured. The more SMEs who agree that items are essential, the higher the content validity. See Understanding Assessment Validity- Content Validity for a way to do this within Questionmark software.
  4. Use item analysis reporting. Item analysis reports flag questions which are don’t correlate well with the rest of the assessment. Questionmark has an easy to understand item analysis report which will flag potential questions for review. One of the reasons a question might get flagged is because participants who do well on other questions don’t do well on this question – this could indicate the question lacks content validity.
  5. Involve Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). It might sound obvious, but the more you involve SMEs in your assessment development, the more content validity you are likely to get. Use an assessment management system which is easy for busy SMEs to use, and involve SMEs in writing and reviewing questions.
  6. Review and update tests frequently. Skills required for jobs change quickly with changing technology and changing regulations.  Many workplace tests that were valid two years ago, are not valid today. Use an item bank with a search facility to manage your questions, and review and update or retire questions that are no longer relevant.

I hope this blog post reminds you why content validity matters and gives helpful tips to improve the content validity of your tests. If you are using a Learning Management System to create and deliver assessments, you may struggle to obtain and demonstrate content validity. If you want to see how Questionmark software can help manage your assessments, request a personalized demo today.

 

Seven tips to recruit and manage SMEs for technology certification exams

imagePosted by John Kleeman

[repost from February 8, 2017]

How do you keep a certification exam up to date when the technology it is assessing is changing rapidly?

Certifications in new technologies like software-as-a-service and cloud solutions have some specific challenges. The nature of the technology usually means that questions often require very specialist knowledge to author. And because knowledge of the new technology is in short supply, subject matter experts (SMEs) who are able to author and review new items will be in high demand within the organization for other purposes.

Cloud technological offerings also change rapidly. It used to be that new technology releases came out every year or two, and if you were writing certification exams or other assessments to test knowledge and skill in them, you had plenty of notice and could plan an update cycle. But nowadays most technology organizations adopt an agile approach to development with the motto “release early, release often”. The use of cloud technology makes frequent, evolutionary releases – often monthly or quarterly – normal.

So how can you keep an exam valid and reliable if the content you are assessing is changing rapidly?

Here are seven tips that could help – a few inspired by an excellent presentation by Cisco and Microsoft at the European Association of Test Publishers conference.

  1. Try to obtain item writing SMEs from product development. They will know what is coming and what is changing and will be in a good position to write accurate questions. 
  2. Also network for SMEs outside the organization – at technology conferences, via partners and resellers, on social media and/or via an online form on your certification website. A good source of SMEs will be existing certified people.
  3. Incentivize SMEs – what will work best for you will depend on your organization, but you can consider free re-certifications, vouchers, discounts off conferences, books and other incentives. Remember also that for many people working in technology, recognition and appreciation are as important as financial incentives. Appreciate and recognize your SMEs. For internal SMEs, send thank you letters to their managers to appreciate their effort.
  4. Focus your exam on underlying key knowledge and skills that are not going to become obsolete quickly. Work with your experts to avoid items that are likely to become obsolete and seek to test on fundamental concepts, not version specific features.
  5. When working with item writers, don’t be frightened to develop questions based on beta or planned functionality, but always do a check before questions go live in case the planned functionality hasn’t been released yet.
  6. Analyze, create, deliverSince your item writers will likely be geographically spread and will be busy and tech-literate, use a good collaborative tool for item writing and item banking that allows easy online review and tracking of changes. (See https://www.questionmark.com/content/distributed-authoring-and-item-management for information on Questionmark’s authoring solution.)
  7. In technology as in other areas, confidentiality and exam security are crucial to ensure the integrity of the exam. You should have a formal agreement with internal and external SMEs who author or review questions to remind them not to pass the questions to others. Ensure that your HR or legal department are involved in the drafting of these so that they are enforceable.

Certification of new technologies helps adoption and deployment and contributes to all stakeholders success. I hope these tips help you improve your assessment program.

Item Development Tips For Defensible Assessments

Julie ProfilePosted by Julie Delazyn

Whether you work with low-stakes assessments, small-scale classroom assessments or large-scale, high-stakes assessment, understanding and applying some basic principles of item development will greatly enhance the quality of your results.

What began as a popular 11-part blog series has morphed into a white paper: Managing Item Development for Large-Scale Assessment, which offers sound advice on how-to organize and execute item development steps that will help you create defensible assessments. These steps include:   Item Dev.You can download your copy of the complimentary white paper here: Managing Item Development for Large-Scale Assessment

Item Development – Summary and Conclusions

Austin Fossey-42Posted by Austin Fossey

This post concludes my series on item development in large-scale assessment. I’ve discussed some key processes in developing items, including drafting items, reviewing items, editing items, and conducting an item analysis. The goal of this process is to fine-tune a set of items so that test developers have an item pool from which they can build forms for scored assessment while being confident about the quality, reliability, and validity of the items. While the series covered a variety of topics, there are a couple of key themes that were relevant to almost every step.

First, documentation is critical, and even though it seems like extra work, it does pay off. Documenting your item development process helps keep things organized and helps you reproduce processes should you need to conduct development again. Documentation is also important for organization and accountability. As noted in the posts about content review and bias review, checklists can help ensure that committee members consider a minimal set of criteria for every item, but they also provide you with documentation of each committee member’s ratings should the item ever be challenged. All of this documentation can be thought of as validity evidence—it helps support your claims about the results and refute rebuttals about possible flaws in the assessment’s content.

The other key theme is the importance of recruiting qualified and representative subject matter experts (SMEs). SMEs should be qualified to participate in their assigned task, but diversity is also an important consideration. You may want to select item writers with a variety of experience levels, or content experts who have different backgrounds. Your bias review committee should be made up of experts who can help identify both content and response bias across the demographic areas that are pertinent to your population. Where possible, it is best to keep your SME groups independent so that you do not have the same people responsible for different parts of the development cycle. As always, be sure to document the relevant demographics and qualifications of your SMEs, even if you need to keep their identities anonymous.

This series is an introduction for organizing an item development cycle, but I encourage readers to refer to the resources mentioned in the articles for
more information. This series also served as the basis for a session at the 2015 Questionmark Users Conference, which Questionmark customers can watch in the Premium section of the Learning Café.

You can link back to all of the posts in this series by clicking on the links below, and if you have any questions, please comment below!

Item Development – Managing the Process for Large-Scale Assessments

Item Development – Training Item Writers

Item Development – Five Tips for Organizing Your Drafting Process

Item Development – Benefits of editing items before the review process

Item Development – Organizing a content review committee (Part 1)

Item Development – Organizing a content review committee (Part 2)

Item Development – Organizing a bias review committee (Part 1)

Item Development – Organizing a bias review committee (Part 2)

Item Development – Conducting the final editorial review

Item Development – Planning your field test study

Item Development – Psychometric review

An easier approach to job task analysis: Q&A

Julie Delazyn HeadshotPosted by Julie Delazyn

Part of the assessment development process is understanding what needs to be tested. When you are testing what someone needs to know in order for them to do their job well, subject matter experts can help you harvest evidence for your test items by observing people at work. That traditionally manual process can take a lot of time and money.

Questionmark’s new job task analysis (JTA) capabilities enable SMEs to harvest information straight from the person doing the job. These tools also offer an easier way to see the frequency, importance, difficulty and applicability of a task in order to know if it’s something that needs to be included in an assessment.

Now that JTA question authoring, assessment creation and reporting are available to users of  Questionmark OnDemand and Questionmark Perception 5.7 I wanted to understand what makes this special and important. Questionmark Product Manager Jim Farrell, who has been working on the JTA question since its conception, was kind enough to speak to me about  its value, why it was created, and how it can now benefit our customers.

Here is a snippet of our conversation:

So … first things first … what exactly IS job task analysis and how would our customers benefit from using it?

Job task analysis, JTA, is a survey that you send out that has a list of tasks, which are broken down into dimensions. Those dimensions are typically difficulty, importance, frequency, and applicability. You want to find out things like this from someone who fills out the surveys: Do they find the job difficult? Do they deem it important? And how frequently do they do it? When you correlate all this data you’ll quickly see the items that are more important to test on and collect information on.

We have a JTA question type in Questionmark Live where you can either build your task list and your dimensions or you can import your tasks through a simple import process—so if you have a spreadsheet with all of your tasks you can easily import it. You would then add those to a survey and send them out to collect information. We also have two JTA reports that allow you to break down results by the actual dimension—just look at the difficulty for all the tasks—or you can look at a summary view of all of your tasks and all the dimensions all at
one time; have a snapshot.

That sounds very interesting and easy to use! I’m interested in how did question type actually came to be.

We initially developed the job task analysis survey for the US Navy. Prior to this, trainers would have to travel with paper and clipboards to submarines, battleships and aircraft carriers and watch sailors and others in the navy do their jobs. We developed the JTA survey to help them be more efficient to collect this data more easily and a lot more quickly than they did before.

What do you think is most valuable and exciting about JTA?

To me, the value comes in the ease of creating the questions and sending them out. And I am probably most excited for our customers. Most customers probably harvest information with paper and clipboard and walking around and watching people do their jobs. That’s a very expensive and time-consuming task, so by being able to send this survey out directly to subject matter experts you’re getting more authentic data because you are getting it right form the SMEs rather than from someone observing the behavior.

 

It was fascinating for me to understand how JTA was created and how it works … Do you find this kind of question type interesting? How do you see yourself using it? Please share your thoughts below!

Learning Styles: Fact?

Doug Peterson HeadshotPosted By Doug Peterson

Are learning styles fact or fiction? There’s a lot of debate on this subject, so I’d like to join in by  presenting each side of the case: the pros in this post and the cons in my next post.

I am fascinated by the idea of learning styles, especially in the context of eLearning and instructor-led, web-based classes (where while delivered live, you don’t have physical proximity/motion/interaction between the instructor and the students).

Here are some points that favor the idea of learning styles.

This short article explains the concept nicely: Different people learn best in different ways, and effective teaching takes this into account. While as many as 71 different learning styles have been proposed, the four most common are:

  • Visual: the learner learns best by looking at things – charts, graphs, pictures, videos, etc.
  • Auditory: the learner learns best by hearing things, for example, listening to lectures or podcasts.
  • Tactile: the learner learns best by touching something.
  • Kinesthetic: the learner learns best by doing something.

Hence a visual learner, for instance, will learn better when the material is presented visually; they will not learn as well when the material is presented as a lecture.

Taking this into account as an instructor, I could design my course to accommodate all of these styles. For example, if I’m putting together an eLearning module, I would include lots of graphics and short bullet points for the visual learner. I would also include audio narration for the auditory learner. (The visual learner could turn off the audio.)

It’s a little tough to incorporate a tactile element in eLearning, but depending on the subject matter, perhaps I could have participants create an origami widget. And for the kinesthetic learner, the origami widget exercise might be useful since it is at least a little bit of movement.  At the very least, I could break my course into several very short chunks so that the kinesthetic learner could get up and move around between chunks. Or maybe I could assign a lab where they have to go to the local office supply store and research some prices–or something like that.

Wow. That’s a lot of work.

And it may not be worth it.

I’ll tell you why in my next post.