《中国射击运动员恢复——应激问卷》的编制

采用标准化的问卷编制程序,编制了《中国射击运动员恢复——应激问卷》,并对该问卷的信、效度进行了检验,结果表明,中国射击运动员恢复——应激问卷具有较高的信、效度,该问卷由应激和恢复两个因子组成。应激因子由情绪应激、休息受干扰、社会应激、心理耗竭、疲劳5个分量表组成,恢复因子由总体感觉良好、身体健康、睡眠质量、社会支持、自我调节、自我效能6个分量表组成     

国内民商事仲裁撤销事由的范围探讨

我回国内民商事仲裁撤销事由的范围,与域外立法相比,实体性事项规定得较多,程序性事由涵盖过窄;实践中,作为当事人申请撤销仲裁的理由中,实体性事项被选择的过多,相应的司法审查也难以产生良性效果;理论上,保障公正、维护仲裁、接轨国际等原则的共同指向一个逻辑结果;具体事由的设置上,也存在一些问题。     

多目标决策中的评价相对有效性方法

建立在数据包络方法基础上的评价相对有效性方法是多目标决策的一种有效途径,对其线性化与评价标准作适当改进,并通过实例说明这种方法的有效性。     

论邓小平理论的国情特色

国情,是认识的基础,是认识的源泉和推动认识发展的动力。邓小平着眼国情,把正确认识中国国情摆在建设有中国特色社会主义的首要地位,提出了“走自己的道路”的基本结论。立足国情,制定了一系列适合中国国情的方针政策,挖掘国情中闪光的一面,扬长避短,趋利避害,发挥我国特殊优势,促进我国经济的全面发展。因此,邓小平理论深深地扎根于国情土壤之中,成为当代中国的马克思主义。     

从信度与效度的相互关系看语言测试的取向

信度与效度是语言测试永恒的主题.从两者相互关系的层面看现代语言洲试的取向,效度应重于信度.     

目标视域中的小康社会

小康社会是中国现代化建设的阶段性目标,从“急躁冒进”到“求真务实”,从注重物质文明到多个文明的全面发展,是小康社会发展目标的新视域;小康社会发展目标与中国特色社会主义发展目标具有内在一致性,它突出经济的基础性地位,体现社会全面协调发展的思维理念;实现小康社会发展目标,必须走科学发展之路、择市场经济之径、循民主法治之途。     

环境侵权民事责任若干问题研究

在生活质量日益提高的现代社会中,环境侵权的数量正在日益增加,与传统的侵权行为相比较,环境侵权表现出了一定的特殊性。在其民事责任的构成要件上,更强调致害行为、损害结果、行为和结果之间的因果关系。尽管随着建立社会主义法制国家的进程和可持续发展观念的深入人心,赋予人们更多的民事权利就显得越发重要,但在环境侵权的损害赔偿法律制度上仍存在一些不完善之处。本文试图结合我国法律制度的现状,提出几点建议,以维护受害人的合法权益。     

When Should I Use a Measure to Support Instructional Improvement at Scale? The Importance of Considering Both Intended and Actual Use in Validity Arguments

Despite the ease of accessing a wide range of measures, little attention is given to validity arguments when considering whether to use the measure for a new purpose or in a different context. Making a validity argument has historically focused on the intended interpretation and use. There has been a press to consider both the intended and actual interpretations and how users make sense of the data when constructing validity arguments, but the practice is not widespread. This paper contributes to existing research on validity by highlighting the value of attending to the actual interpretation and use of a measure aimed at supporting instructional improvement in mathematics. We describe the use of the same measure across two contexts to highlight the importance of attending to characteristics of both users and the contexts in which the measures are used when assessing the validity of inferences for the purpose of instructional improvement efforts.     

NCME Presidential Address 2020: Valuing Educational Measurement

The community of educational measurement researchers and practitioners has made many positive contributions to education, but has also become complacent and lost the public trust. In this article, reasons for the lack of public trust in educational testing are described, and core values for educational measurement are proposed. Reasons for distrust of educational measurement include hypocritical practices that conflict with our professional standards, a biased and selected presentation of the history of testing, and inattention to social problems associated with educational measurement. The five core values proposed to help educational measurement serve education are: (a) everyone is capable of learning; (b) there are no differences in the capacity to learn across groups defined by race, ethnicity, or sex; (c) all educational tests are fallible to some degree; (d) educational tests can provide valuable information to improve student learning and certify competence; and (e) all uses of educational test scores must be sufficiently justified by validity evidence. The importance of these core values for improving the science and practice of educational measurement to benefit society is discussed.     

An Evaluative Framework for Reviewing Fairness Standards and Practices in Educational Tests

One of the substantive changes in the 2014 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing was the elevation of fairness in testing as a foundational element of practice in addition to validity and reliability. Previous research indicates that testing practices often do not align with professional standards and guidelines. Therefore, to raise awareness of fairness concepts and principles from the 2014 Standards, this study aligned those standards with fairness practices, as documented in test manuals and on websites of 18 intelligence and achievement tests from different test publishers. A content analysis indicated that just under half of the fairness standards are frequently or occasionally practiced and those occurrences differed somewhat across tests but did not differ between intelligence and achievement tests or across publishers. To inform and encourage improvements in the future practice of the fairness standards, an evaluative framework along with example practices and related methodological scholarship is discussed.