🧩 Understanding “Face Validity” in Language Testing

 1. What “Face Validity” Really Means

The truth is that many teachers and even some researchers have misunderstood the term face validity. At first glance, it sounds like something positive—after all, a test that “looks good” should also be a good test, right? But the fact is that appearance alone does not make a test valid.

In simple terms, face validity refers to how credible or appropriate a test seems to be — from the point of view of test takers, teachers, or other non-specialists. If a test appears to measure what it’s supposed to, people say it “has face validity.” However, as early scholars in educational measurement warned, this “surface appeal” can be misleading if it’s not supported by real evidence.

2. Why the Term Became Controversial

Over 70 years ago, Mosier (1947) warned that face validity was being used too loosely and emotionally. He observed that some people treated a test as valid simply because it looked right — what he called “validity by assumption.” The problem, Mosier said, is that assuming a test works just because it looks professional or “feels” right is a dangerous fallacy. True validity must be demonstrated through evidence, not intuition.

Cattell (1964) later echoed this criticism, arguing that relying on face validity reflected wishful thinking rather than scientific reasoning. To him, it was more of a “diplomatic” tool than a technical one — useful for managing perceptions, but not for ensuring truth.

Finally, Cronbach (1984), one of the most respected figures in test theory, made it clear that adopting a test only because it seems reasonable is poor practice. Many tests that look logical on the surface, he said, turn out to be invalid when analysed more deeply. The key message? Don’t confuse what looks valid with what is valid.

3. How the Field Moved Away from Face Validity

By the mid-1980s, the concept of face validity had almost disappeared from professional standards. The American Psychological Association (APA, 1974) explicitly stated that “the mere appearance of validity” cannot justify the use of test scores. By the 1985 edition of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, the term had been completely removed.

Yet — and this is the surprising part — the idea has never fully disappeared from language testing. Many teachers and institutions still refer to face validity when describing the “believability” of their tests. Why? Because how a test looks and feels to students and administrators still matters in the classroom context.

4. A Practical Perspective for Language Teachers

Let’s be honest: even if face validity is not a real kind of validity, it does play a role in whether people trust and accept a test. For instance, Davies (1977) pointed out that teachers and test takers are influenced by tradition and expectations. A test that looks too different from what they’re used to—say, an interactive speaking test instead of a grammar quiz—might be viewed with suspicion, even if it’s more accurate.

Similarly, Ingram (1977) suggested that face validity should be treated as a public relations issue, not a technical one. The appearance of a test can influence acceptance, motivation, and seriousness. If students believe the test is fair and relevant, they are more likely to perform their best.

Alderson (1981) added another insightful point: when a curriculum changes—say, from grammar drills to communicative language teaching—the test should also “look” different. If it doesn’t, people may question the credibility of the new approach. So yes, test appearance matters — but not because it proves validity. It matters because it affects motivation, perception, and trust.

5. The Delicate Balance Between Appearance and Evidence

The real challenge for bilingual teachers and test designers is this: How can we design tests that look credible and feel authentic, but that are also supported by solid evidence?

Language testing is a special case because language is both the object and the instrument of measurement (Bachman, 1986). We use language to measure language — which makes it hard to separate the test’s form from what it measures. That’s why tests that look authentic (like role plays or interviews) may seem “valid,” but still need rigorous validation.

As Bachman and Palmer (1979) reminded us, if we become too comfortable with the appearance of “real-life” tasks, we risk confusing authenticity with validity. Our professional responsibility is to go beyond appearance — to collect evidence that the test truly measures what it claims to.

6. What This Means for You as a Teacher-Designer

In your role as a bilingual teacher designing evaluation instruments:

• You can use test appearance to engage and motivate learners.
• But you must base your interpretations on evidence, not assumptions.
• Be aware that face validity influences trust — not truth.
• Validate your instruments through content analysis, construct validation, and empirical data, not just teacher or student opinions.
• And most importantly: help your learners see that a fair test is not one that “looks right,” but one that is rightly constructed.

📚 References

lderson, J. C. (1981). Communicative language testing. Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 1–26.

American Psychological Association. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. APA.

Bachman, L. F. (1986). The development and use of criterion-referenced tests of language ability. Language Testing, 3(1), 63–95.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1979). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 671–677.

Cattell, R. B. (1964). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55(1), 1–22.

Cronbach, L. J. (1984). Essentials of psychological testing (4th ed.). Harper & Row.

Davies, A. (1977). The validity of proficiency tests. In D. J. Ingram (Ed.), Language testing papers. RELC.

Ingram, D. J. (1977). Basic concepts in language testing. RELC.

Mosier, C. I. (1947). A critical examination of the concept of face validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7(2), 191–205.