3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cracks, Gaps, and Holes in Validation Practice as Evidenced From a Validation Synthesis of the English Version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

      1 , 1 , 1
      European Journal of Psychological Assessment
      Hogrefe Publishing Group

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract: We conducted a validation synthesis of the English version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Twenty-eight studies met our criteria for inclusion. Using the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing ( AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014 ) as a frame of reference, we examined the sources of validity and reliability evidence gathered; identified trends, gaps, and issues with this evidence; and made recommendations to guide future validation practice. None of the studies directly cited any edition of the Standards. Validity evidence has relied predominantly on internal structure, followed by relations to other variables, and little to no other sources of evidence. Reliability evidence was reported in most studies but consisted exclusively of internal consistency estimates. Increased awareness and use of the Standards and better training in measurement could help improve validation practice. Recommendations to researchers include becoming more familiar with modern validity theory, paying more attention to sources of validity evidence that address score meaning, presenting clear and explicit a priori expectations of the evidence needed to support the validity of intended inferences, and evaluating obtained evidence with a more critical eye to determine the degree to which theoretical rationales and the evidence support the meaning of test scores for a given use, sample, and context.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Society and the Adolescent Self-Image

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                European Journal of Psychological Assessment
                European Journal of Psychological Assessment
                Hogrefe Publishing Group
                1015-5759
                2151-2426
                November 2024
                November 2024
                : 40
                : 6
                : 529-547
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Dept. of ECPS, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
                Article
                10.1027/1015-5759/a000877
                0e7721a2-4819-4de7-a3e2-94e132889973
                © 2024

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article