Bibliographic record
Abstract
The early history of developments in construct validity theory (CVT) is traced through a review of works either critiquing the utility of the framework or extending it to a broader range of testing contexts and considerations. The works of Brodbeck (1957), Bechtoldt (1959), Loevinger (1957), and Campbell and Fiske (1959) are emphasized. Important advances in psychometric theory and methods in the 1960s and 70s are also described. Developments in CVT as reflected in the first two revisions of what is today known as the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (the “ Standards ”) are summarized. Finally, respective post–1955 works of Lee Crobach and Paul Meeh are examined in order to see how the originators, themselves, extended or altered their initial description of the framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".