A validation study of the 1997 Adapted Physical Education National Standards (APENS) certification exam.

摘要

The purpose of this study was to evaluate evidence of validity for the 1997 Adapted Physical Education National Standards (APENS) National Certification Exam using the 1999 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing . Specifically, five sources of validity evidence were used to investigate the validity of the APENS National Certification Exam. Five sources included evidence based on test content, response processes, internal structure, relationships to other variables, and consequences of testing. Five research questions were developed with sub-questions designed to address specific aspects of the APENS Project.; Methodology for this study included qualitative analysis, multiple regression, and exploratory factor analysis. For each aforementioned source of validity, an investigation of the processes, decisions, and procedures was conducted against the literature. Further analysis was conducted where evidence added to the validity argument.; Findings indicate the validity argument is supported by evidence contributed from four of the five validity sources. Evidence based on test content indicated that the APENS exam measured what it purported to measure and that a test specification framework was used to develop the test. In addition, expert judges were used throughout the APENS Standards and National Certification Exam development process. Finally, issues surrounding the under or over representation of the construct, including bias, were controlled through a strong internal validity design.; Evidence based on response consequences supported the validity argument. Responses from the test item validation study were used to inform the item writing and selection process. Responses from exam candidates were analyzed using stepwise multiple regression. The findings support the eligibility criteria established to take the exam as well as the Certified Adapted Physical Education (CAPE) profile. Predictors paralleled the eligibility and CAPE profile.; Evidence based on internal structure suggested process and procedures used were sound and controlled for construct irrelevant bias. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the results from the (N = 219) exam candidates. Six factors were reported, but were not interpretable. Further analysis is warranted and should include the accumulation of more recent administrations of the exam.; Evidence of validity based on relationships with other variables was not available for analysis. Finally, the validity argument, as presented from a unified approach, supports the inferences of test scores for the APENS National Certification Exam.