34
,415
,4966
,350
,799
35
,554
,5010
,632
,786
36
,769
,4246
,496
,793
Validity
The
CLUni

Test

was

validated

by

6

experts

from

the

areas

of

Language

and
Literature
Didactics,

Hispanic

Philology,

Linguistics

and

Communication),

who

were
sent by email the preliminary version of the test (text booklet, question booklet and answer
key) and a document –made by following the guidelines and advice of Feliz (2010)– in
which
they

were

asked

for

their

collaboration

for

validation

by

experts.

After

a

brief
introduction describing the test and its recipients, they were presented with a series of
tables for a general evaluation of the test and for the specific assessment of each of the
texts and the items that refer to them, in terms of its relevance (in which way it assesses
reading competence) and adequacy (to the recipients of the test), by means of scales from
1 to 5, in which 1 meant “nothing relevant / adequate” and 5, “very relevant
/ suitable”. They also had a space for comments on the test in general and on each text
and item, where they could write down what they considered appropriate (reasons for their
choice
in

the

scale,

proposals

for

improvement,

proposals

for

change

or

elimination,
errata...). Finally, they were invited to write comments and suggestions.
The experts who participated in the validation process evaluated most of the texts
and items that make up the test very positively. Likewise, in their general comments they
indicated that they considered the CLUni Test to be a pertinent and valid tool, which stands
out
for

the

textual

variety,

and

that

has

construct

validity

since

its

items

are

in
correspondence with the indications that derive from the concept and the capacity that is
intended to be measured. They considered, finally, that the test conforms to the intended
objectives and that the instrument is prepared (with the exception of slight considerations)
for its application and data collection.
However, the experts consulted pointed out certain aspects of improvement, which
were considered and a consensus was sought to make the pertinent modifications, such
as, for example, the reduction of the time for its realization (which was initially of one
hour and a half), due to that the amplitude of the test and the length of some texts can
suppose fatigue and an excessive cognitive demand.
Also, the validity of the content was sought through the selection of types of texts
and the design of the
items according to the assumptions established

in the theoretical
framework of PISA 2009-2015.
113