Evaluating Predictive Validity: A Rejoinder to Braden et al. (1995)
- 1 September 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
- Vol. 13 (3) , 266-270
- https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299501300305
Abstract
Braden et al. (1995) argued that percentile rank scores from the subtests of SAT-d yield accurate predictive validity coefficients for the Performance scale of WISC. In doing so they have reiterated their rationale and think my investigation was flawed in some respects. I have examined their misconceptions about my study and conclude that there is nothing flawed. I have re-evaluated their rationale and find it unacceptable. I propose the study of age and other factors as moderator variables in validity inquiry with the goal of validity generalization.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Reply to Kishor: Choosing the Right MetricJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1995
- Evaluating Predictive Validity by Using Different Scales of the Stanford Achievement Test for the Hearing ImpairedJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1995
- The earth is round (p < .05).American Psychologist, 1994
- Hierarchical linear modelling of predictive validity: The case of Kenya certificate of primary education examinationStudies in Educational Evaluation, 1994
- Criterion-related validity of the WISC-R performance scale with the Stanford achievement test—Hearing-impaired editionJournal of School Psychology, 1990
- The Criterion-Related Validity of the WISC-R Performance Scale and Other Nonverbal IQ Tests for Deaf ChildrenAmerican Annals of the Deaf, 1989
- Moderating effects and differential reliability and validity.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963
- Differential Predictability in the Use of Test ScoresEducational and Psychological Measurement, 1954