African Journal of Educational Assessors (April/June 2017 – Volume 3, Issue 1)

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

Concept of Validity

Validity is an important concept but not fully explored, that is the reason that,
professionals keep exploring it. Validity is one of the characteristics of human activity or
an event. As in reality, validity is related to the extent of something being right or wrong.
There are articles, manuals about modern approaches to validity. According to Afolabi
(2012), the conceptual nature of validity has typically been described for the testing
profession in a set of standards prepared by a Joint committee of American Educational
Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council
on Measurement in Education. Likewise, Sidhu (2012) reported that the traditional view
that there are different types of validity has been discarded. Instead, validity is viewed as
a unitary concept based on various kinds of evidence. However, the evidence to support
the validity of the test or examination still remains the three basic approaches of content,
criterion-related and construct validation procedures, and these subsume the three
principal purposes of tests or examinations as earlier indicated (Afolabi, 2012). As Sireci
(2007) put it, validity is an important theoretical concept. In qualitative characteristic
term, as validity is, has its peculiar difficulty to be measured as a quantitative
characteristic in terms of its degree of trueness. If the validity of a phenomenon doesn’t
receive quantity expression, it won’t be possible to compare two similar phenomena or
objects of the educational system in the sense of validity (Sireci, 2007).

In general, without having quantity expression of validity it is impossible to make
sound judgments about an event itself, not in comparison with other events. Therefore the
idea of validity without quantity expression will not work purposefully and will be less
usable also in education. Meanwhile it is obvious that the idea of validity is natural and if
it is expressed in quantity, it will be applied both in life and in educational sphere widely
(Kane, 2006). Let’s look at the following example where validity is used in life – validity
of the human leg. The leg is considered valid if it is healthy and complete, i.e., it
completely serves its purpose. The leg is invalid if it doesn’t exist. The leg consists of
toes, foot, hip, shin and muscles. If one lacks a toe, the other foot, the third lacks the hip
or they exist but don’t function properly, all these are the invalid parts of the leg or they
are valid to some extent.

It is possible to form general or particular scales for a leg which will categorize the
degrees of defects and ascribe quantified values. Using this we can compare the validity
of different defects of the legs or the category of validity of a leg. To the extent to which
it is possible to prove that this or that event or activity is true or false, it is possible to
speak also about its validity. The clock can go right or wrong. Wrongness can be of
different degrees, for example, one clock can be wrong for 1 second another can be
wrong for a minute per day, etc. In this case the degree of error is not difficult to define
but it is important because further application of the clock depends on that factor
(Mikayelyan and Mikayelyan, 2015).

In the sphere of mental activity or education we will make an attempt to find
mechanisms of similar judgments, for example, to compare validity of different tests
compiled for the same aim or to define the degree (extent) of validity of a test or an item
(Popham, 2008). We cannot see the validity of an item or a task clearly as in case of
physical values (Baird, 2010). If we divide a test or a task into parts according to the
standards' requirements similar to the case of legs, it will be possible to make scales of
weights or quantified expressions for each part. As doctors decide to assign a person
disability pension depending on the degree of invalidity of a leg, the experts of testing,

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 184

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

having the scale of the item’s and the test validity, can make a decision about the test
applicability or about refining the test if it is necessary (Wolming 2010). Similarly, in the
educational sphere if we define validity before applying a test it will rather be theoretical
validity (Moss, 2008). If the validity is defined by using the test results or the marks
given by the teacher or pupils’ opinion about face validity this will be less theoretical
validity. The analysis of the practical validity can have impact on the decrease of
standard errors and improvement of educational standards. Besides being used in
analyses, practical validity is important for improvement and further usage of the test.

Practical Validity
The concept of validity is getting more subtly evaluated depending on the degree of

importance of assessment results' accuracy in particular community (Wikström, 2010).
However, there is a wide gap between theoretical validity and its practical use. It is a
serious problem, which needs a solution. There are many trials to find methodology for
practical usage of validity. Modern approaches of finding the quantitative expression of
validity sometimes are obtained by such a complicated means, that they lose their
chances to be used in practice. Also, validity of a test is used in the educational process.
Validity considered from this point of view can impact on the improvement of the
standards, curriculum and the methods of instruction. Hence, the value of this validity is
great. Validity is called practical validity if it becomes measurable by use of a method.
For putting validity into practical use, it is important to mention for which concrete
purpose the validity is considered (Black. 2010).

Standard-Setting Methods in Public Examinations in Nigeria
Like many large testing bodies, the West African Examinations Council, the National

Examinations Council, and the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board have a formal
review to scrutinize items during the test development process. The items are reviewed
before field testing by content specialists (i.e., test developers and teachers) as well as
after field testing when a small sample of student data is available (Ibrahim, 2013). To
ensure that tests are fair for all examinees, most large testing programmes have a formal
review, which is part of the test development process, where items are screened by
content specialists for text that might be inappropriate or unfair to relevant subgroups in
the test-taking population including female examinees, minority group examinees such as
visually impaired students, or disabled examinees. According to Afolabi (2012), the
WAEC has been conducting public examinations in Nigeria since 1952 and included the
Senior Secondary Certificate Examination (SSCE) to its portfolio in 1988. The test
development procedure for this examination begins from the development of the syllabus
and the provision of test specification tables, to guide item writers as well. The latter
specifies in detail the important topics that ought to be assigned to each topic or aspects
of the syllabus.

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 185

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

Table1: Standard Test Procedures by Public Examination Agencies in Nigeria

WAEC NECO JAMB

Development of the Development of the Preparation of table
syllabus and provision of
syllabus and provision of test specification tables to of specification using
guide item writers as well.
test specification tables to Items are generated for the taxonomy of
each subject in multiple
guide item writers as well. choice type. Generated educational
items are professionally
Items are generated for each edited and moderated by objectives in
seasoned Evaluators before
subject in multiple choice typesetting. conformity with

type. Generated items are subject syllabus and

professionally edited and content weighting.

moderated by seasoned

Evaluators before

typesetting.

There are more than two There are more than two Item writing by
sets of items for each sets of items for each subject experts
subject from subject officer. subject from subject
The selection of the item to officer. The selection of Test editing
be used is at the high the item to be used is at the
echelon of the Council. This high echelon of the Management reading
reduces the number of staff Council. This reduces the
that will be privy to the number of staff that will be Trial testing of the
selected items. privy to the selected items. test instruments

Selected items are made Selected items are made
photo ready for printers. photo ready for printers.
Printing of sensitive Printing of sensitive
materials is given to a materials is given to a
credible and reliable printer credible and reliable
(printing outfit). printer (printing outfit).
Monitoring the routine and Monitoring the routine and
labeling of the sensitive labeling of the sensitive
materials is exclusive duty materials is exclusive duty
of reliable and honesty very of reliable and honesty
senior staff. Movement of very senior staff.
the materials is always done Movement of the materials
based on the selected states is always done based on
and centers the selected states and
centers
Nigeria is divided into six Nigeria is divided into six
(6) zones from which (6) zones from which
schools are selected based schools are selected based
on an established criteria on an established criteria
that take care of public, that take care of public,
private, rural, urban and private, rural, urban and
allied schools. allied schools.

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 186

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

There is always a pre- There is always a pre- Scanning of
information of schools information of schools examinees responses
nearly twelve weeks to the nearly twelve weeks to the
trial testing exercise. The trial testing exercise. The Collection of scanned
materials from the printing materials from the printing data
outfit reside in each state outfit reside in each state
office of the council under a office of the council under Cleaning of the data
heavy security. a heavy security. and calibration of the
trial tested items
The sensitive materials The sensitive materials
released to the assigned released to the assigned Selection of test
senior staff for each school senior staff for each school items and building of
to administer. The to administer. The the parallel test forms
administration of trial administration of trial Test delivery through
testing exercise is mainly testing exercise is mainly Computer Based Test
for council’s staff as for council’s staff as (CBT)
schools staffs are exempted schools staffs are
from it. exempted from it.

The question papers are The question papers are
always collected back after always collected back after
each subject including the each subject including the
answer scripts (OMR). answer scripts (OMR).
Student’s eligibility is Student’s eligibility is

restricted to only the final restricted to only the final
year students who are due year students who are due
to take their final exam in to take their final exam in
the school. the school.
The answer booklets are The answer booklets are
packaged and sent directly packaged and sent directly
to the ICT office for to the ICT office for
scanning. scanning.
The ICT section must have The ICT section must have
programme her system to programme her system to
accommodate the keys to accommodate the keys to
each test item. each test item.

Source: WAEC, NECO & JAMB

WAEC Grading System

Under the new WAEC standard grading system, A1 is Excellent, B2 Very Good, B3
Good, C4, C5 and C6 are interpreted as Credit, D7 and D8 are interpreted as Pass, while F9
is Fail. A1 and B2 in the WASSCE means Excellent, B3 is B (Very Good), C4 is C (Good),
C5 and C6 are D (Credit), D7 and E8 are E (Pass) and F9 is F (Fail). This is as presented in
Table 2as follows:

Table 2: WAEC Grading System and Interpretation by Percentage

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 187

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

Grade Definition Interpretation

A1 Excellent 80% – 100%
70% – 79%
B2 Very good
65%- 69%
B3 Good 60% – 64%
C4 Credit 55% – 59%
C5 Credit 50% – 54%
45% – 49%
C6 Credit 40% – 45%
D7 Pass 0% – 44%
E8 Pass
F9 Failure
Source: mywaectimetable.com, 2017

NECO Grading System
Similarly, the standard setting system established the National Examination Council

for SSCE candidates are the same with that of grading system in operation by WAEC. Under
the new NECO grading system, A1 is Excellent, B2 Very Good, B3 Good, C4, C5 and C6
are interpreted as Credit, D7 and D8 are interpreted as Pass, while F9 is Fail. A1 and B2 in
the WASSCE means Excellent, B3 is B (Very Good), C4 is C (Good), C5 and C6 are D
(Credit), D7 and E8 are E (Pass) and F9 is F (Fail). However, differences in percentage grade
setting of both WAEC and NECO were statistically significant between grades A1 (80% -
100%), and B2 (70% -79%) WAEC standard setting when compared to NECO grade setting
of A1 (75% - 100%), and B2 (70% - 74%) standard setting respectively. All other
comparisons in standard setting of both examination agencies are statistically significantly
the same. Also, numeric values attracted to each grade are of the same equivalent scale
values1-9. This is as presented in Table 3.

Table 3: NECO Grading System and Interpretation by Percentage Grading Definition

Grade Definition Interpretation

A1 Excellent 75% – 100%

B2 Very good 70% – 74%

B3 Good 65%- 69%

C4 Credit 60% – 64%
C5 Credit 55% – 59%

C6 Credit 50% – 54%
D7 Pass 45% – 49%
D8 Pass 40% – 45%
F9 Failure 0% – 44%
Source: NECO SSCE Internal Site, 2017

Further, suffice to say that WAEC’ s numerical grade is patterned after some British

Examining bodies which presumably adopt a model which fixes the percentage of the
candidates’ population in each of the grades 1-9. However, in practice, the steady

percentages are not actually maintained as the conditions, with regard to the test norms, as set

out by the oversea examining bodies are fully not observed. These are: (i) Regency of the

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 188

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

norms, which is affected by changes in education; (ii) Representativeness of the sample,
which must be large enough to produce stable statistics; and (iii) Relevance, which is
dependent upon the degree to which the population sampled (the examinee) is comparable to
the group with which the users of the test wish to compare their students. Another area of
dissimilarity between the two scales is the pattern of the performance curve on which the
scales are based. With the large number of candidates taking WAEC’s examination, one
would expect the score distribution to fall on a normal curve. This, on many occasions has
not been the case. Here lies a problem which requires critical intervention.

Validity of Standard-Setting Methods in Nigeria, United Kingdom and United States of
America Public Examinations

In juxtaposition, a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is, as of
September 2015, graded on a 1 - 9 scale, with a 9 being the highest possible achievement and
1 being the lowest. According to Baird (2010), A 9 is considered exceptional and,
statistically, only awarded to the top 3% of the population. However, "9-1" exams are to be
taken from 2017 for English Literature, English Language and Mathematics and from 2018
for all other subjects. Those who will be taking exams in 2018, and subjects other than
English and Mathematics in 2018, will be graded A*-G, with A* being the highest grade
obtainable. Noteworthy, the entire United Kingdom does not use the same grading scheme
(grades are referred to as marks in the UK). England, Wales and Northern Ireland use a
unified system for grading secondary school qualifications. Generally,
the English and Welsh secondary school grading are in line with the GCSE grades. The
grading system is presented in Table 4.

Table4: Comparison of Validity of Standard-Setting Methods in Nigerian Public Examinations and
Grading System in the United Kingdom and United States of America

NECO/WAEC GRADE USA Grade UK Grade

Grade Description

A1 Excellent A+ A*
B2 Very Good A A
B3 Good B+ B
C4 Credit B C
C5 Credit C+ D
C6 Credit C E
D7 Pass D F
D/E8 Pass D G
F9 Fail F N/A Ungraded

It is apparent from Table 4 that the expected proportion of grades by candidates on
either WAEC, NECO, USA or UK’ s Scale is for grades 1-9, and is equal to that of Stanine
respectively. For instance, in WAEC’ s system, marks for the critical grades differ from

subject to subject and year to year culminating in the disparity in standards between subjects.

A grade C in one subject may therefore not be equivalent to a grade C in another subject.

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 189

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

These findings are supported by Ibrahim (2015) and Zubayr and Ibrahim (2016) who in their
separate studies discovered that achievement in one discipline must be recognised as
radically different from those in any other. This is because within a subject, the objective to
be attained and knowledge to be acquired are such radical differences which are neither
equitable with nor reducible to that of any other discipline. Similarly, Soriyan (2002) stated
that the SSCE as public examinations is norm-referenced. The award procedures should
arguably take cognizance of the general level of performance of candidates in each of the
subject. The levels of performance could therefore vary from one subject to the other and
thus the marks that equate the same grades for different subjects are likely to vary from
subject to subject. In a clearer term, grade fixing is to indicate whether a performance is good
and the extent of “goodness”.

However, the findings contrasted with Akeju (2001) who believed that any model that
presumes a given standard of candidates to be in a given range for a fluid educational
population as in Anglophone West Africa is logically invalid. Yet the model on which
WAEC‟s scale is built is being violated still apart from the above in that the critical grades of
B2, C6 and E8 are fixed at award meetings, without any reference to standardized raw scores
corresponding to standardized scores of 75, 60 and 30. It is not clear whether this is done
before the grades on which candidate performance are based are awarded. This was perhaps
why Yoloye, Bajah, Falayajo, Obemeata and Chacko (2001) stated that WAEC used certain
formulae for deciding the mark ranges corresponding to the various grades without the
officials knowing the basis of the formulae. Generally, performance can be good in many
ways depending on the subject and the level of attainment which the test experts in that
subject considered good. However, the aims and objectives of the syllabus or curriculum
should always be put in perspective. Also, since the students who have attempted the
examinations from which marks have been generated were of varying cognitive abilities, the
norm is often resorted to by WAEC/NECO in setting standards for SSCE. Thus, the use of
Stanine (A1-F9) in reporting performance in SSCE by the examination bodies is considered
appropriate (Zubayr and Ibrahim, 2016).

The WAEC’s nine point scale/numerical grades seem to be doing this. It would
however, appear that it does not have a statistical basis and hence a need to have a rethink
about its continued use. It is pertinent to note that even the United Kingdom (UK) bodies
from which the numerical grade was inherited had since 1975 abandoned it for letter grades
which are based on certain criteria as outlined by Yoloye et al., (2001). Council may wish to
opt for this, i.e., the use of A, B, C, D, E and F. the interpretation of these grades is as
follows: A = Excellent; B = Very Good; C = Good; D = Upper Credit; E = Lower Credit; and
F = Fail. If it is felt that the society that makes use of the grades are very much used to
numerical one then the present 9 point scale can be shortened to 6, thus, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, with
5 representing the minimum pass at credit level.

Sustainable National Development

Etymologically, sustainability is a word derived from the adjective sustainable, which
itself is derived from the verb sustain. To be sustainable means to have the quality nature or
characteristic of being sustained. By sustenance is meant the sum total of the conditions that
will keep a thing or state at a viable, though not necessary optimum level of existence. It is
therefore right to assume that what is to be sustained is what has organic existence. This

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 190

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

implies that the sustainability is that which can come into being, live, grow, and later die. By
sustainable development, is meant the development that meets the needs of the present
generation, while guaranteeing the future needs of the unborn. That is, in our effort to live a
wholesome and satisfying life, we must not compromise the capacity of future generations to
meet their own needs. This implies to man’s activities in relation to the natural as well as the
socio-cultural environment. According to Brundtland (2010), sustainable development has
been defined as the means by which development is made to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Contextually, the principle of sustainable development therefore demands that in our quest
for improved quality of life, we should adopt a carefully planned approach to the country
(Nigeria) in a way that the capacity of these resources to cater for the needs of others coming
after us will not be eroded. We should not live only for the now but also hold the future
earnestly in view.

In this study, this principle equally applies to the terms of the validity of public
examinations. Examinations, especially public examinations, are means to an end; that is,
they are conducted to fulfil certain ends. These include the certification of trainees or
students as having achieved an acceptable level of mastery in their programmes, the
prediction of future performance, and evaluation of the training or educational system. If a
person is certified through public examination as fit to practice as a medical doctor, a school
teacher, or an accountant, the examination that forms the basis of these certificates lacks
credibility or integrity, the certified professional is likely to impair the health or delicate the
balance of the system in which s/he could operate; for sooner or later the incompetence,
mediocrity and inadequacy will show, initially at micro level, but later at a macro level
giving the proliferation of such instances in the course of national development. Over a
period of time, the endemic effect as health, education or public finance will be manifest.
Invariably then, allowing, permitting, tolerating or overlooking fraudulent practices in public
examinations in order to satisfy or please the present whims and caprices of some members
of the society, is in effect, reducing or minimising the capacity of the social, political,
educational and cultural subsystems to meet the need of future generations.

Conclusion

The principle of sustainable national development as it applies to public examinations
demand that the outcomes of our public examinations should reflect or approximate the true
abilities, skills or achievements of our students, such that their performances either in the
world of work or in further studies will enhance rather than reduce the capacity of the society
at large both to promote and to hold in balance all its constituents parts, elements or strata.

Recommendations

Based on the discussion above, the following approaches are suggested:

1. The current grading format of the SSCE should be further evaluated to ascertain
its relevance to the present situation;

2. The procedure for determining the minimum marks for each of the grades needs
to be modified and readjusted;

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 191

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

3. The practice of combining the somewhat subjective judgement of examiners with
statistical techniques in fixing minimum marks for grades with a view to getting
certain expected frequency distributions appear rather cumbersome and even
contradictory. Hence, it needs to be revisted; and

4. The work of the final awards committee of WAEC/NECO need to deemphasize
paper qualification, but need for systematic productive validity measures of UME.

References

Adeyegbe, S.O. & Daramola, S.O. (2004). Pre and post item analysis of objective papers of
the WAEC GCE O/L Examinations. WAEC Research Report, 8(3), 1-17.

Afolabi, E.R.I. (2012). Scoring of essay and objective tests. In E.R.I. Afolabi & O. O. Dibu-
Ojerinde (Eds.), Educational Test & Measurement. Ile-Ife, Nigeria: Obafemi
Awolowo University Press.

Ahman, N. & Glook, W. (2014). Educational standards and the problem of error. Education
and Policy Analysis Archives, 6 (10), 234-242.

Akeju, D. (2001). Statistical approaches to subject grade awards in the GCE O/L
Examinations. WAEC Research Report, 3(10), 28-41.

Baird, J. (2010).The theory-practice gap. Assessment in Education, Principles, Policy &
Practice, 17(2), 113-121.

Berk, R. (2006). Standard setting: The next generation. Applied Measurement in Education,
9(3), 215-235.

Black, P. (2010). Assessment in the classroom: Constructing and interpreting tests. London:
The Falmer Press.

Brundtland, G.H. (2010). Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press.

Faleye, B. A. & Afolabi, E. R. I. (2005). Pre-dictive validity of the Osun State Junior
Secondary Certificate Examination. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology, 5(3), 131-144.

Ibrahim, A. (2013). Comparative study of generalized Mantel-Haenszel, simultaneous item
bias test and logistic discriminant function analysis in detecting differential item
functioning in dichotomous and ordinal test items. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty
of Education, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.

Ibrahim, A. (2015). An empirical analysis of standard fixing and grade awards at Senior
Secondary School Certificate Examinations in Nigeria. Journal of Educational
Research and Review, 3(7), 111-119.

Kalgo, F. A. (2005). The debate over standards and the uses of testing. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 36 (1), 198-209.

Kane, M.T. (2006). Validation. In Brennan, R.L. (4th eds.), Educational Measurement.

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 192

AFRICAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSORS

e-2536-7501, p-2536-751X

Westport, CT : American Council on Education.

Mikayelyan O. & Mikayelyan, S. (2015). On the issue of validity. Yerevan: National Institute
of Education Press.

Moss, P. (2008).Shifting Conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications
for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 229-258.

Popham, W.J. (2008). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. USA:
ASCD.

Sidhu, K.S. (2012). New approaches to measurement and evaluation. New Delhi, India:
Sterling Publishers Private Limited.

Sireci, S.G. (2007). On validity theory and test validation. Educational Researcher, 36 (8),
477–481.

Soriyan, H.A. (2002). Information on Systems development in Nigeria Software Company:
Research Methodological and Assessment form the Health Care Sector‟s Perspective
Electronic. Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 5, 234-242.

Ukwuegbu, N. (2007). A multi-stage dominant profile method for setting standards on
complex performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 8(1), 57- 83.

Wikström, G. (2010). Creating tests worth taking. Educational Leadership, 44(8), 26-33.

Wolming, S. (2010). The concept of validity in theory and practice. Assessment in Education,
Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 148-157.

Yoloye, E. A. Bajah, S. T. Falayajo, W. Obemeata, J. O. And Chacko, I. (2001). Standards of
WAEC examinations: Evaluation Reports. Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press.

Zubayr, F.A. & Ibrahim, A. (2016). A meta-analytic assessment of standard fixing at Senior
Secondary School Certificate Examination by West African Examinations Council,
Nigeria. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 4 (1), 31-39.

Vol. 3(1) 2017 www.benchmarkjournals.com Page 193