A Method to Examine Content Domain Structures

After a test is developed, most content validation analyses shift from ascertaining domain definition to studying domain representation and relevance because the domain is assumed to be set once a test exists. We present an approach that allows for the examination of alternative domain structures based on extant test items. In our example based on the 59 items from the 2004 Arizona state high school mathematics test, we asked 34 subject matter experts (SMEs) to judge the similarity of items based on any characteristics deemed important to them. After sorting items into categories, SME similarity data were scaled using multidimensional analysis. Scale values were then cluster analyzed to examine the domain structure derived from SME group responses. The SME similarity data yielded a cluster configuration that shared some commonality with the state model as stipulated in test specifications, but differed in critical ways. Confirmatory factor analysis of student item responses indicated that although both models fit the data the SME domain configuration produced better fit indices, suggesting that analyzing domain definition after construction can enhance the understanding of construct meaning.

[1]  Matthijs J. Warrens,et al.  On the Equivalence of Cohen’s Kappa and the Hubert-Arabie Adjusted Rand Index , 2008, J. Classif..

[2]  Stephen G. Sireci,et al.  Evaluating Alignment Between Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction , 2009 .

[3]  Kurt F. Geisinger,et al.  Using Subject-Matter Experts to Assess Content Representation: An MDS Analysis , 1995 .

[4]  André Hardy,et al.  An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set , 1994 .

[5]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. , 1989 .

[6]  Ann S. White,et al.  A Comparison of Two Methods for Structuring Performance Domains , 1992 .

[7]  Chad W. Buckendahl,et al.  Aligning Tests with States' Content Standards: Methods and Issues , 2005 .

[8]  S. Sireci The Construct of Content Validity , 1998 .

[9]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[10]  Craig W. Deville,et al.  An Empirical Link of Content and Construct Validity Evidence , 1996 .

[11]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[12]  Linda Crocker,et al.  Quantitative Methods for Assessing the Fit Between Test and Curriculum , 1989 .

[13]  William M. Rand,et al.  Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods , 1971 .

[14]  Kurt F. Geisinger,et al.  Analyzing Test Content Using Cluster Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling , 1992 .

[15]  Ronald A. Berk,et al.  A Guide to Criterion-Referenced Test Construction , 1984 .

[16]  Stephen G. Sireci,et al.  Gathering and Analyzing Content Validity Data , 1998 .

[17]  Paul R. Yarnold,et al.  Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics , 1995 .

[18]  Norman L. Webb,et al.  Issues Related to Judging the Alignment of Curriculum Standards and Assessments , 2007 .