Same Same yet Different: Equivalence of the Multidimensional Assessment of Vocational Competence Across Test Formats.
Saved in:
| Title: | Same Same yet Different: Equivalence of the Multidimensional Assessment of Vocational Competence Across Test Formats. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ma, Beifang1 (AUTHOR) beifang.ma@uni-due.de, Krötz, Maximilian2 (AUTHOR), Deutscher, Viola3 (AUTHOR), Winther, Esther1 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | International Journal of Training & Development. Dec2025, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p433-448. 16p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Test validity, *Item response theory, *Vocational education, *Cognitive load, Psychometrics |
| Abstract: | The rapid digital transformation of vocational education and training (VET) has underscored the need to adapt traditional assessment methods to digital formats. However, when transitioning to digital modes, it is crucial to consider factors beyond mere technical implementation, particularly the potential impact of altered presentation formats on the validity of assessment outcomes. This study explores these considerations in the context of computer‐based assessments, focusing on validating a digital format for evaluating vocational‐economic competence. A particular emphasis was placed on ensuring measurement invariance between digital and paper‐pencil formats, taking into account the effects of assessment layout, including cognitive load, the split‐attention effect, and environmental factors such as context dependence and the digital literacy of test‐takers. Furthermore, this study outlines a guideline‐compliant validation procedure for the digital version of a vocational‐economic competence assessment. To achieve this, we employed multi‐group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) and a multidimensional item response theory (IRT) model to assess measurement invariance and estimate person abilities across the two formats. Validity evidence obtained includes both measurement invariance across subgroups and the assessment's dimensionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Training & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The rapid digital transformation of vocational education and training (VET) has underscored the need to adapt traditional assessment methods to digital formats. However, when transitioning to digital modes, it is crucial to consider factors beyond mere technical implementation, particularly the potential impact of altered presentation formats on the validity of assessment outcomes. This study explores these considerations in the context of computer‐based assessments, focusing on validating a digital format for evaluating vocational‐economic competence. A particular emphasis was placed on ensuring measurement invariance between digital and paper‐pencil formats, taking into account the effects of assessment layout, including cognitive load, the split‐attention effect, and environmental factors such as context dependence and the digital literacy of test‐takers. Furthermore, this study outlines a guideline‐compliant validation procedure for the digital version of a vocational‐economic competence assessment. To achieve this, we employed multi‐group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) and a multidimensional item response theory (IRT) model to assess measurement invariance and estimate person abilities across the two formats. Validity evidence obtained includes both measurement invariance across subgroups and the assessment's dimensionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13603736 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ijtd.12372 |
