AERA, APA et NCME (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Préparé par American Educational Research Association, American  Psychological Association et National Council on Measurement in Education. Washington, DC.

Achim, A. (2017). Testing the number of dimensions in exploratory factor analysis. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 13, 64-74. [PA-NESTip détermine le nombre de facteurs présents]. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.13.1.p064

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior ». Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Allaire, D. & Laurencelle, L. (1998). Comparaison Monte Carlo de la précision de six estimateurs de la variance d’erreur d’un instrument de mesure. Lettres Statistiques, 10, 27-50.

André, N, Loye, N. & Laurencelle, L. (2015). La validité psychométrique: un regard global sur le concept centenaire, sa genèse, ses avatars. Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation, 37, 125-148. doi: 10.7202/1036330

André, N. & Laurencelle, L. (2020). Where do the conceptual models for behavior change come from, and how are they used? A critical and constructive appraisal. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16, 1-8. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.16.1.p001

Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 19-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge.

Beaumier, M. (2019). Élaboration et validation d’une grille prédictive de la vascularisation artérielle insuffisante à une plaie au membre inférieur. Thèse de doctorat (Ph.D.) en sciences biomédicales, UQTR-Université de Montréal.

Bertrand, R. & Blais, J.-G. (2004). Modèles de mesure. L’apport de la théorie des réponses aux items. Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Binet, A. & Simon, T. (1904). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux. L’année psychologique, 11, 191-244.

BIPM (2012). Vocabulaire international de métrologie – Concepts fondamentaux et généraux et termes associés (VIM). Bureau international des poids et mesures (BIPM) (3e édition).

Bloom, B. A. (1942). Test reliability for what? Journal of educational psychology, 33, 517-526.

Bloombaum, M. (1970). Doing smallest space analysis. Journal of conflict resolution, 14,409-416.

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J. & van Herden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061

Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

Carver, C. S. (1989). How should multifaceted personality constructs be tested? Issues illustrated by self-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 56, 577-585.

Chevalier, R., Conte, R., Labrie, Y, Landry, F. & Nadeau, A. (1978). Éléments de métrologie. Québec: Les éditions La Liberté.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient a? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In Education measurement (2e edition) (p. 443-507). Washington DC : American council on education.

Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Ferguson, G. A. (1949). On the theory of test discrimination. Psychometrika, 14, 61-68.

Fischer, C. T. (2006). Qualitative research methods for psychologists: introduction through empirical studies. Boston (MA): Elsevier Academic Press.

Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards of test evaluation. Education and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427-438.

Guttman, L. (1954). An outline of some new methodology for social research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 395-404.

Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469-506.

Guttman, L. (1982). Facet theory, smallest space analysis, and factor analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 487-493.

Guttman, R. & Greenbaum, C. W. (1998). Facet theory: Its development and current status. European Psychologist, 3, 13-36.

Hathaway, S. R. & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Hattie, J. (1985). Methodological review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139-164.

Hattie, J. (1996). An assessment of Stout’s index of essential unidimensionality. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 1-14.

Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4e édition) (p. 17-64). American council on education-Praeger.

Kane, M. T. (2013a). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1-73. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12000

Kane, M. T. (2013b). Validation as a pragmatic, scientific activity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 111-122. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12007

Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers-on-Hudson (NY) : World Book.

Kolen, M. J, (2006). Scaling and norming. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4e édition) (p. 15-186). American council on education – Praeger.

Kuhn, M. & Johnson, K. (2013). Applied predictive modeling. New York: Springer.

Laurencelle, L. (1993). Et la corrélation, comment la voyez-vous? Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation, 16, 133-145.

Laurencelle, L. (1994). Corrélation et décalage de rangs. In L. Laurencelle (Ed.) : Trois essais de méthodologie quantitative (p. 1-34). Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Laurencelle, L. (1997). La capacité discriminante d’un instrument de mesure. Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation, 20, 25-39.

Laurencelle, L. (1998). Théorie et techniques de la mesure instrumentale. Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Laurencelle, L. (2014). The discriminating capacity of a measuring instrument: Revisiting Bloom (1942)’s theory and formula. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 10, 5-12. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.10.1.p005

Laurencelle, L. (2015). Une théorie des seuils psychométriques à double contrôle d’erreur – Partie I : l’imprécision échantillonnale des centiles. Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation, 38, 87-109.

Laurencelle, L. (2016a). L’étalonnage et la décision psychométrique (2e édition). Québec, Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Laurencelle, L. (2016b). Une théorie des seuils psychométriques à double contrôle d’erreur – Partie II : l’erreur de mesure et le concept de norme sûre. Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation, 39, 45-66. doi: 10.7202/1036764a

Laurencelle, L. (2017). Une théorie des seuils psychométriques à double contrôle d’erreur – Partie III : les applications illustrées. Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation, 40, 105-133. doi: 10.7202/1048912

Laurencelle, L. (2021). L’alpha de Cronbach, ses émules, la consistance interne, la fidélité : une mise au point. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 17, 46-50. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.17.1.p046

Loye, N. (2018). Et si la validation était plus qu’une suite de procédures techniques? Mesure et Évaluation en Éducation, 41, 97-123. doi: 10.7202/1055898

McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (p. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and Macmillan.

Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G. & Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design (Research Report 03-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Parisien, M. (2021). Validité empirique versus validité factorielle dans les inventaires de personnalité : le MMPI-2 et les échelles restructurées RC. The Quantitative Methods for Psychgology, 17, 87-104. doi:10.20982/tqmp.17.2.p087

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.

Popham, W. J. (1997). Consequential validity: right concern – wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16, 9-13.

Proulx, J. (2019). Recherches qualitatives et validités scientifiques. Recherches qualitatives, 38, 53–70. doi: 10.7202/1059647ar

Schlesinger, I. M. & Guttman, L. (1969). Smallest space analysis of intelligence and achievement tests. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 95-100.

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107-120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0

Slocum, S. L. & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Social Indicators Research, 102, 443-461. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9682-8

Steyerberg, E. W. (2010). Clinical prediction models a practical approach to development, validation, and updating: New York Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77244-8

Stout, W. F. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589-617.

Stout, W. F. (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach and applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika, 55, 293-325. 

Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An Introduction to coefficient Alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99-103. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18

Strong, E. K. (1927). Vocational interest test. Educational Record, 8, 107-121.

Trafimow, D. & Earp, B. D. (2016). Badly specified theories are not responsible for the replication crisis in social psychology: Comment on Klein. Theory and Psychology, 26, 540–548. doi: 10.1177/0959354316637136

Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2e edition) (p. 235-251). Los Angeles: Sage.

Zieky, M. J. (2014). An introduction to the use of evidence-centered design in test development. Psicologia Educativa, 20, 79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.003

Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Tovel, I. & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s a, Revelle’s ß, and McDonald’s ?h : their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychomerika, 70, 123-133. doi : 10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7