Reconceptualizing Validity in Teacher Education Research: Examining Measurement Precision, Interpretive Evidence, and Consequential Evidence

Abstract

This study aimed to reconceptualize validity in teacher education research by examining measurement precision, interpretive evidence, and consequential evidence and clarifying how these three domains contribute to a coherent validity argument. An analytical review design was employed to examine studies published between 2010 and 2025 on measurement and validity in teacher education. The initial search identified 286 records; after duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment, 44 studies met the inclusion criteria and entered the final analysis. Data were extracted using a structured validity-evidence form and coded across three domains: measurement precision, interpretive evidence, and consequential evidence. Descriptive analysis, directed content analysis, and interpretive synthesis were used to identify dominant patterns, gaps, and inconsistencies in the reviewed studies. The results revealed a marked imbalance in the distribution of validity evidence. Internal consistency indices were reported in 79.5% of studies, and evidence of internal structure appeared in 81.8%. However, only 31.8% of studies explicitly connected the collected evidence to the intended interpretation of scores. Measurement invariance was examined in 20.5% of studies, response-process evidence in 18.2%, and differential item functioning or measurement bias in 13.6%. Most notably, 65.9% of studies provided no direct consequential evidence concerning score use, and only 18.2% demonstrated relatively comprehensive coverage across measurement precision, interpretive evidence, and consequential evidence. Validity in teacher education research should be reconceptualized from a fixed property of an instrument into a cumulative, context-dependent argument concerning score precision, the defensibility of interpretations, and the justification of score use.