La validité psychométrique est d'abord un jugement : une perspective pragmatique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Validit, validation d'un test, proprits ou qualits psychomtriques, voil trois expressions qui dsignent les oprations ou procdures permettant de juger de la pertinence d'un instrument de mesure psychomtrique, de son laboration et son application. L'expression "validit psychomtrique" a ds les dbuts reu diverses interprtations et elle continue aujourd'hui d'interpeller les thoriciens. La validit d'un test rside-t-elle dans la mesure qu'il produit ou dans l'action qui en dcoule ou bien rfre-t-elle l'interprtation qu'on lui attache? La validit repose-t-elle strictement sur le rsultat d'une procdure de validation? Un test "dmontr valide" est-il valide en lui-mme ou sa "validit" est-elle relative la dmonstration qu'on en a faite ou son usage prvu? Existe-t-il diffrentes espces de validit ou reprsente-t-elle un concept unifi, molaire? Une dfinition claire et consensuelle du concept de "validit psychomtrique" n'a pas encore vu le jour. C'est dans une perspective la fois pragmatique et conceptuellement rigoureuse que nous prconisons d'abolir l'expression "validit psychomtrique", que cette expression ne correspond pas per se un concept, mais qu'elle est tout simplement un jugement, tout comme l'est au tribunal le prononc du juge en considration des preuves qu'on lui soumet, de l'intim concern et des circonstances attenantes au procs. La validit est un jugement l'effet que la mesure, le test, l'chelle psychomtrique rpond adquatement et fidlement l'usage qu'on lui destine. L'essai explore ensuite le riche arsenal disponible au psychomtricien et l'utilisateur pour leur permettre "d'valuer" bon escient la validit situationnelle du test produit. Validity, test validation, psychometric properties or qualities: here are three expressions that designate the operations and procedures that make it possible to judge the relevance of a psychometric measurement instrument, its development and its use. The expression "psychometric validity" has historically inherited various interpretations from the outset and it continues today to challenge theorists. Does the validity of a test lie in the measure it produces or in the action that is derived from it, or does it refer to the interpretation intended for it? Is validity based strictly on the result of a validation procedure? Is a "demonstrated valid" test valid in itself or is its "validity" relative to the demonstration or intended use? Are there different species of validity or does it represent a unified, molar concept? A clear and consensual definition of the concept of "psychometric validity" has not yet been found. It is from a pragmatic yet conceptually rigorous perspective that this essay argues for the abolition of the term "psychometric validity", that the term is not a concept per se, but simply a judgment, just as a judge's pronouncement in court is a judgment in light of the evidence before him or her, the respondent, and the circumstances surrounding the trial. Validity is a judgment that the measure, test, or psychometric scale responds adequately and reliably to its intended use. The essay then explores the well-stocked arsenal available to the psychometrician and his client to enable them to "assess" themselves the situational validity of the test produced.
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 | 0.126 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".