DiscoTests        Research        Contracting

HOME        SELECT        ABOUT       CONTACT US        LOG IN       LOG OUT        REGISTER                  


The validity, reliability, & sensitivity of Lectical Assessments*

Validity

When thinking about the validity of our assessments, we focus primarily upon construct validity**. Construct validity is usually thought of as the degree to which assessments measure what they are designed to measure, but since our assessments do much more than provide a score, we think of construct validity more broadly—as the degree to which our assessments accomplish what they are designed to accomplish. When we design and deliver assessments, we consider (1) the extent to which their scores capture the Lectical dimension (the skill level of the performance); (2) how well they target the domain or topic of interest; (3) their relevance, particularly with respect to the relevance of their feedback; and (4) their utility, particularly with respect to the value of their feedback.

Figure 1: Validity considerations for Lectical Assessments and DiscoTests

validity

Reliability

We track two forms of reliability: (1) internal consistency, which we examine with Rasch modeling software, and (2) inter-rater reliability.

Figure 2: Maintaining the reliability of our scores

reliability

Research

We have been conducting research on (and with) our assessments for several years. Some of this research has been published in peer reviewed journals. Other research is documented in reports. The following section shows how some of our publications and reports relate to various aspects of reliability and validity. (Click on titles to view pdf documents.)

Convergent validity References
Psychometric modeling and qualitative analyses reveal that the LAS and several longitudinally validated domain specific cognitive developmental assessment systems assess the same dimension of performance. Dawson, T. L. (2000). Moral reasoning and evaluative reasoning about the good life. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 372-397.
Dawson, T. L. (2002). A comparison of three developmental stage scoring systems. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 146-189.
Dawson, T. L. (2003). A stage is a stage is a stage: A direct comparison of two scoring systems. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 335-364.
Dawson, T. L., & Gabrielian, S. (2003). Developing conceptions of authority and contract across the life-span: Two perspectives. Developmental Review, 23, 162-218.
Dawson, T. L., Xie, Y., & Wilson, M. (2003). Domain-general and domain-specific developmental assessments: Do they measure the same thing? Cognitive Development, 18, 61-78.
Dawson, T. L. (2004). Assessing intellectual development: Three approaches, one sequence. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 71-85.
Predictive validity 1 Evidence
LectaTests are designed to target real-world skills—skills that make us better at what we do at work and in our personal lives. If we are doing a good job, working with our assessments should support behavioral change. In a preliminary analysis of Clear Impact's ambitious 40-hour, 9 month, leadership training initiative involving four levels of management in a large North American city, we examined the effects of embedding up to 8 LectaTests (including pre-and post LDMAs) on manager's growth and collaborative behavior. Most of the results reported here are restricted to the LDMA data of supervisors who (1) completed pre and post LDMAs and (2) had two or more supervisees who had completed pre and post LDMAs.
The number of LectaTests taken by supervisors predicts their own Lectical growth 161 Greater Lectical growth of supervisors predicts higher 360 scores from direct reports
Regression results
  n r p
.19 .01
9 .59 .09
Higher 360 scores for supervisors predict higher average lectical growth of direct reports 10 .60 .07
Higher average Lectical growth of direct reports predicts higher 360 scores from peers 10 .46 .18
Predictive validity 2
Upper level managers, on average, have higher-level decision making skills than lower level managers. Lectical Score averages for different management levels
Unidimensionality References
Rasch modeling shows that the LAS captures a robust dimension of performance.  Dawson-Tunik, T. L. (2004). A good education is: The development of evaluative thought across the life-span. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130, 4-112.
Dawson-Tunik, T. L., Commons, M., Wilson, M., & Fischer, K. (2005). The shape of development. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2, 163-196.
Transformational learning References
Rasch modeling shows that development along the latent dimension measured by the LAS is wave-like, a pattern that is consistent with the cognitive developmental postulate that development is characterized by a series of nested, hierarchical reorganizations of knowledge structures (rather than the simple accumulation of knowledge). Xie, Y., & Dawson, T. L. (2006). Multidimensional models in a developmental context. In M. Garner, G. Engelhard, M. Wilson & W. Fisher (Eds.), Advances in Rasch Measurement: JAM Press.
Dawson-Tunik, T. L. (2004). A good education is: The development of evaluative thought acros the life-span. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130, 4-112.
Dawson-Tunik, T. L., Commons, M., Wilson, M., & Fischer, K. (2005). The shape of development. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2, 163-196.
Dawson-Tunik, T. L. (2005, June). Cognitive change is stage-like: The cumulative evidence from a decade of Rasch modeling. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Vancouver.
Dawson, T. L. (2006). Stage-like patterns in the development of conceptions of energy. In X. Liu & W. Boone (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in science education (pp. 111-136). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
Internal consistency References
The internal consistency of the LAS has historically been above .90. (As of 2009, we are maintaining alphas of .95 and above. In general, reliability studies show that we can have confidence in lectical scores to within 1/5 to 1/4 of a level, which means we can detect 4-7 distinct phases of performance within a typical classroom.) Dawson, T. L. (2000). Moral reasoning and evaluative reasoning about the good life. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 372-397.
Dawson, T. L. (2002). A comparison of three developmental stage scoring systems. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 146-189.
Dawson, T. L., Xie, Y., & Wilson, M. (2003). Domain-general and domain-specific developmental assessments: Do they measure the same thing? Cognitive Development, 18, 61-78.
Dawson-Tunik, T. L. (2004). A good education is: The development of evaluative thought across the life-span. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130, 4-112.
Dawson-Tunik, T. L., Commons, M., Wilson, M., & Fischer, K. (2005). The shape of development. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2, 163-196.
Inter-rater reliability References
Inter-rater reliability for the LAS consistently has been above 85% agreement within 1/3 of a lectical level. (As of 2007, we maintain an inter-rater agreement rate of 85% within 1/4 of a level.) Dawson-Tunik, T. L. (2004). A good education is: The development of evaluative thought across the life-span. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130, 4-112.
Dawson-Tunik, T. L., Commons, M., Wilson, M., & Fischer, K. (2005). The shape of development. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2, 163-196.
Dawson, T. L. (2006). Stage-like patterns in the development of conceptions of energy. In X. Liu & W. Boone (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in science education (pp. 111-136). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
Statistical reliability Alphas and variance explained by factor 1
In Rasch analyses of the assessments developed by DTS, the lectical dimension (hierarchical complexity) consistently explains 79–99% of the variance in performances.
Test Project N item no. Alpha Variance explained
LDMA CI 1099 5 .968 88.73%
FOLA DTS 61 2 .894 91.44%
LMBE LMBE 13 5 .984 95.13%
LLRA LLRA 54 5 .988 95.47%
LRJA LRJA 224 7 .958 79.89%
Evaluation studies References
Lectical assessments have been used in a number of evaluation studies. They have been shown to capture learning over relatively short interventions and in small cohorts. (See table below for results of several piared samples t-tests.) Dawson-Tunik, T. L. & Stein, Z. (2004, July). Critical Thinking Seminar pre and post assessment results. Hatfield, MA: Developmental Testing Service, Inc.
Dawson, T. L., & Stein, Z. (2006). National decision-making curriculum. Results of the pre- and post-instruction developmental assessments. Northampton, MA: Developmental Testing Service.
Dawson, T. L., & Stein, Z. (2006). Mind Brain & Education study: Final report. Northampton, MA: Developmental Testing Service, Inc.

Embedding LectaTests

This table shows growth during a current leadership training program in which LectaTests are embedded Embedded assessments inform instruction. For example, they may be used as part of a lesson plan, like a written assignment might be used to help learners solidify what they are learning. as formative assessments. Although class time is limited to 40 hours, participants are demonstrating development that is equivalent to what we have measured in year-long college courses (without embedding).

Scale Overall (114) Upper (7) Middle (43) Supers (57)
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Lectical score 11.3 11.5 11.5 11.6 11.4 11.6 11.2 11.4
Perspective taking 22 38 30 35 25 41 19 36
Perspective seeking 8 17 8 20 10 19 6 15
Perspective coordination 30 59 27 66 31 63 28 55
Collaborative capacity 34 56 33 66 37 59 31 52
Contextual thinking 31 52 33 65 33 56 29 48
Decision-making process 28 54 32 57 28 60 26 50
 

 

Study N Interval Program length (hrs) Embedded Mean growth
IT 2004, LDMA 40 6 mos 60 No 0.06
IT 2005, LDMA 32 6 mos 60 Yes 0.27
MH 2010, LRJA 43 13 mos 42 No 0.13
AU 2010, LDMA 28 12 mos 43 No 0.09
ZV 2012, LDMA 18 4 mos 40 Yes 0.18
NA 2012, LDMA 24 1 mos 40 No 0.03
NA1 2013, LDMA 16 4 mos 40 No 0.05
NA2 2013, LDMA 19 4 mos 40 No 0.07
ST 2012, LDMA 27 6 mos 40 No 0.15
CI 2013, LDMA 512 9 mos 40 Yes 0.18
The table on the right shows average growth for several evaluation studies. In some of these, LectaTests were embedded Embedded assessments inform instruction. For example, they may be used as part of a lesson plan, like a written assignment might be used to help learners solidify what they are learning. in curricula; in others, they were not. The average annual growth for undergraduates in college is about .13 of a level per year. The average growth for the 7 studies in which LectaTests were not embedded is .083, whereas the average growth for the 3 studies in which LectaTests were embedded, is .21.

Detecting change over short periods and in small samples

In the table below, paired samples t-tests show levels of detectable growth in several program evaluations that were conducted with Lectical Assessments. They demonstrate that our measures can detect growth as small as .05 of a level in an average-sized classroom (NA1 2013, LDMA). Moreover, they show that measurable growth can occur with minimal instruction in a well-designed program. For example, the individuals in CI 2012 met only 4 times over the course of 3 months.

Study N Interval DF Mean time 1 Mean time 2 t2 - t1 t p
IT 2005, LDMA 32 6 mos 31 10.98 11.17 0.27 7.05 .001
CI 2012, LDMA 31 3 mos 30 11.24 11.30 0.06 2.01 .053
ST 2012, LDMA 27 3 mos 26 11.18 11.27 0.09 2.64 .014
AU 2010, LDMA 44 12 mos 43 10.92 11.08 0.16 2.19 .034
CI 2013, LDMA 185 9 mos 184 11.31 11.49 0.17 14.39 .001
AU 2011, LDMA 57 12 mos 56 11.24 11.28 0.04 1.50 .140
AU 2011, LDMA 38 12 mos 37 11.25 11.32 0.07 2.28 .030
ZV 2012, LDMA 18 4 mos 17 11.26 11.44 0.18 5.91 .001
NA 2012, LDMA 24 1-3 mos 23 11.25 11.28 0.03 1.41 .170
NA1 2013, LDMA 16 3 mos 15 11.24 11.29 0.05 3.30 .001
NA2 2013, LDMA 19 3 mos 18 11.23 11.30 0.07 3.63 .001
MH 2010, LRJA 43 13 mos 42 11.32 11.19 0.13 2.22 .031

*All Lectical assessments meet or exceed the validity and reliability standards for educational and psychological testing set jointly by the APA, AERA, and NCME.

**See: Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35(11), 1012-1027.

ABOUT US
ABOUT LECTICAL® ASSESSMENTS
ADMIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      ©2010-2016 Lectica, Inc. All rights reserved.