21 May 2020

This paper presents a conceptual and methodological proposal about validity in teaching assessment processes. Although they are very common processes, and in some cases have significant individual and organisational consequences, a theoretical and methodlogical approach to them has not yet been performed. Based on reviewing research and the experience accumulated over years of conducting evaluations and evaluative research, we take as a starting point our own conceptualisation of evaluation (summative and formative evaluation or appraisal/diagnosis) as an applied research form that essentially uses measurement processes. Therefore, it takes the concept of validity in these two knowledge areas and applies it to the area of teaching evaluation by providing a specific definition of the validity in the evaluation process. Moreover, based on conceptual references in research and measurement, this work identifies generic and specific methodological considerations, which include the concept of validity, providing meaningful definitions for each of them. Understanding that validity, as a quality of evaluation, must be taken into account throughout the evaluation process, we also propose a series of strategies to ensure this is done correctly, based on defining validity and the aspects that comprise it. Therefore, this work’s contribution is conceptual and methodological, and it proposes a reference point for conceptualising validity in a field with broad use and with profound consequences for teachers, institutions, and educational systems.



This is the English version of an article originally printed in Spanish in issue 276 of the revista española de pedagogía. For this reason, the abbreviation EV has been added to the page numbers. Please, cite this article as follows: Jornet Meliá, J. M., Perales Montolío, M. J., & González-Such, J. (2020). El concepto de validez de los procesos de evaluación de la docencia | The concept of validity of teaching evaluation processes. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 78 (276), 233-252. doi: