DOCUMENT RESUME TM 025 049 AUTHOR Messick, Samuel
DOCUMENT RESUMETM 025 049ED 395 031AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEPUB TYPEMessick, SamuelValidity of Test Interpretation and Use.Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.ETS-RR-90-11Aug 90EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSMF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Concurrent Validity; *Construct Validity; *ContentValidity; Criteria; Educational Assessment;*Predictive Validity; *Scores; *Test Interpretation;Test Use*Social bility (142)ABSTRACTValidity is an integrated evaluative judgment of thedegree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales supportthe adequacy and appropriateness of interpretations and actions basedon test scores or other modes of assessment. The principles ofvalidity apply not just to interpretive and action inferences derivedfrom test scores as ordinarily conceived, but also to inferencesbased on any means of observing or documenting consistent behaviorsor attributes. The key issues of test validity are the meaning,relevance, and utility of scores; the import or value implications ofscores as a basis for action; and the functional worth of scores interms of the social consequences of their use. For some time, testvalidity has been broken into content validity, predictive validityand concurrent criterion-related validity, and construct validity.The only form of validity neglected or bypassed in these traditionalformulations is that bearing on the social consequences of testinterpretation and use. Validity becomes a unified concept when it isrecognized, or assured, that construct validation subsumesconsiderations of content, criteria, and consequences. Speaking ofvalidity as a unified concept doGs not mean that it cannot bedifferentiated into facets to underscore particular issues. Theconstruct validity of score meaning is the integrating force thatunifies validity issues into a unitary concept. (Contains 1 table and25 references.) **************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original ******************************
RR-90-11U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOfhco of Educatronel Research and ImprovementEOUCAONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BYCENTER (ERIC)VAJIEA'hs document hes bun reprodLoced asreceived from the Porton or Omani:shortoromating0 Minor changes have tau made to unproureproduction comMyL.L.)Points of view or whom:stated th document do not neCeOsanly rpresent othciaiOERI posttion or policyTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."AVALIDITY OF TEST INTERPRETATION AND USESamuel MessickBEST COPY &NAMABLEEducational Testing ServicePrinceton, New JerseyAugust 1990
VALIDITY OF TEST INTERPRETATION AND USESamuel MessickEducational Testing Service3
Copyright (C) 1990, Educational Testing Service.4All Rights Reserved
VALIDITY OF TEST INTERPRETATION AND USESamuel Messick'Educational Testing ServiceValidity is an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree towhich empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacyand appropriateness of interpretations and actions based on test scorts orother modes of assessment.The principles of validity apply not just tointerpretive and action inferences derived from test scores as ordinarilyconceived, but also to inferences based on any means of observing ordocumenting consistent behaviors or attributes.Thus, the term "score" is used generically here in its broadest senseto mean any coding or summarization of observed consistencies or performanceregularities on a test, questionnaire, observation procedure, or otherassessment device (such as work samples, portfolios, or realistic problemsimulations).This general usage subsumes qualitative as well asquantitative summaries.It applies, for example, to protocols, to clinicalinterpretations, to behavioral or performance judgments or ratings, and tocomputerized verbal score reports.Nor are scores in this general senselimited to behavioral consistencies and attributes of persons, such aspersistence and verbal ability.Scores may refer as well to functionalconsistencies and attributes of groups, situations or environments, andobjects or institutions, as in measures of group solidarity, situational'This article appears in M. C. Alkin, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of EducationalResearch (6th ed.), New York: Macmillan, 1991. Grateful acknowledgements aredue Walter Emmerich, Robert Linn, and Lawrence Stricker for their helpfulcomments.
-2-stress, quality of artistic products, and such social indicators as schoolirop-out rate.Broadly speaking, validity is an inductive summary of both the existingevidence for and the actual as well as potential consequences of scoreinterpretation and use.Hence, what is to be validated is not the test orobservation device as such but the inferences derived from test scoresor other indicators (Cronbach, 1971) -- inferences about score meaning orinterpretation and about the implications for action that the interpretationentails.In essence, then, test validation is empirical evaluation of themeaning and consequences of measurement.It is important to note that validity is a matter of degree, not allor none.Furthermore, over time, the existing validity evidence becomesenhanced (or contravened) by new findings.Moreover, projections of potentialsocial consequences of testing become transformed by evidence of actualconsequences and by changing social conditions.In principle, then, validityis an evolving property and validation is a continuing process -- except, ofcourse, for tests that are demonstrably inadequate or inappropriate for theproposed interpretation or use.In practice, because validity evidence isalways incomplete, validation is essentially a matter of making the mostreasonable case, on the basis of the balance of evidence available, bothto justify current use of the test and to guide current research needed toadvance understanding of what the test scores mean and of how they functionin the applied context.This validation research to extend the evidence inhand then serves either to corroborate or to revise prior validity judgments.To validate an interpretive inference is to ascertain the extent towhich multiple lines of evidence are consonant with the inference, while6
-3-establishing that alternative inferences are less well supported.Consonantresearch findings supportive of a purported score interpretation or a proposedtest use are called convergent evidence.For example, convergent evidence foran arithmetic word-problem test interpreted as a measure of quantitativereasoning might indicate that the scores correlate substantially withperformance on logic problems, discriminate mathematics majors from Englishmajors, and predict success in science courses.Research findings thatdiscount alternative inferences, and thereby give greater credence to thepreferred interpretation, are called discriminant evidence.For example,to counter the possibility that the word-problem test is in actuality areading test in disguise, one might demonstrate that correlations with readingscores are not unduly high, that loadings on a verbal comprehension factor arenegligible, and that the reading level required by the items is not taxing forthe population group in question.Both convergent and discriminant evidenceare fundamental in test validation (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).To validate an action inference requires validation not only of scoremeaning but also of value implications and action outcomes,especiallyappraisals of the relevance and utility of the test scores for particularapplied purposes and of the intended as well as unintended social consequencesof using the scores for applied decision making.For example, let us assumethat the previously considered word-problem scores, on the basis of convergentand discriminant evidence, are indeed interpretable in terms of the constructof quantitative reasoning.The term "construct" has come to be used generallyin the validity literature to refer to score meaning -- typically, but notnecessarily, by attributing consistency in test responses and score correlatesto some quality, attribute, or trait of persons or other objects of
measurement.This usage signals that score interpretations are (or should be)constructed to explain and predict (or less ambitIously, to summarize or atleast be compatible with) score properties and relationships.Given this quantitative reasoning interpretation, the use of thesescores in college admissions (action implications) would be supported byjudgmental and statistical evidence that such reasoning skills are implicatedin or facilitative of college learning (relevance); that the scores usefullypredict success'.:he freshman year (utility); and, that any adverse impactagainst females or minority groups, for instance, is not due to male- ormajority-oriented item content or to other sources of construct-irrelevanttest variance but, rather, reflects authentic group differences in constructrelevant quantitative performance (appraisal of consequences or side effects).Thus, the key issues of test validity are the meaning, relevance, and utilityof scores, the import or value implications of scores as a basis for action,and the functional worth of scores in terms of the social consequences oftheir use.MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE FOR UNIFIED VALIDITYAlthough there are different sources and mixes of evidence forsupporting score-based inferences, validity is a unitary concept.Validityalways refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the adequacyand appropriateness of interpretations and actions based on test scores.Furthermore, although there are many ways of accumulating evidence to supporta particular inference, these ways are essentially the methods of science.Inferences are hypotheses, and the validation of inferences is hypothesistesting.However, it is not hypothesis testing in isolation but, rather,6
-5 -theory testing more generally because the source, meaning, and import ofscore-based hypotheses derive from the interpretive theories of score meaningin which these hypotheses are rooted.As a consequence, test validation isbasically both theory-driven and data-driven.Hence, test validation embracesall of the experimental, statistical, and philosophical means by whichhypotheses and scientific theories are evaluated.What follows amplifiesthese two basic points -- namely, that validity is a unified though facetedconcept and that validation is scientific inquiry into score meaning.Sources of validity evidence.are by no means unlimited.The basic sources of validity evidenceIndeed, if asked where to turn for such evidence,one finds that there are only a half dozen or so main research strategies andassociated forms of evidence.The number of forms is arbitrary, to be sure,because instances can be sorted in various ways and categories set up atdifferent levels of generality.But a half dozen or so categories of thefollowing sort provide a workable level for highlighting similarities anddifferences among validation approaches:1.Appraise the relevance and representativeness of the testcontent in relation to the content of the behavioral orperformance domain about which inferences are to be drawn orpredictions made.2.Examine relationships among responses to the tasks, items, orparts of the test -- that is, delineate the internal structureof test responses.345.Survey relationships of the test scores with other measures andbackground variables -- that is, elaborate the test's externalstructure.Directly probe the ways in which indtviduals cope with the itemsor tasks, in an effort to illuminate the processes underlyingitem response ane, task performance.Investigate uniformities and differences in these test processesand structures over time or across groups and settings -- that
- 6-is, ascertain that the generalizability (and limits) of testinterpretation and use are appropriate to the construct andcontexts at issue.6.Evaluate the degree to which tesl: scores display appropriate ortheoretically expected variations as a function of instructionaland other interventions or as a result of experimentalmanipulation of content and conditions.7.Appraise the value implications and social consequences ofinterpreting and using the test scores in the proposed ways,scrutinizing not only the intended outcomes but also unintendedside effects -- in particular, evaluate the extent to which (or,preferably, discount the possibility that) any adverseconsequences of testing derive from sources of score invaliditysuch as irrelevant test variance.The guiding principle of test validation is that the test content, theinternal and external test structures, the operative response proces-.es,the degree of generalizability (or lack thereof), the score variations as afunction of interventions and manipulations, and the social consequences ofthe testing should all make theoretical sense in terms of the attribute ortrait (or, more generally, the construct) that the test scores are interpretedto assess.Research evidence that does not make theoretical sense calls intoquestion either the validity of the measure or the validity of the construct,or both, granted that the validity of the research itself is not alsoquestionable.One or another of these forms of validity evidence, or combinationsthereof, have in the past been accorded special status as a so-called typeof validity.But because all of these forms of evidence bear fundamentally onthe valid interpretation and use of scores; it is not a type of validity butthe relation between the evidence and the inference to be drawn that shoulddetermine the validation focus.That is, one should seek evidence to support(or undercut) the proposed score interpretation and test use as well as to
-7discount plausible rival interpretations.-In this enterprise, the varietiesof evidence are not alternatives but rather complements to one another.Thisis the main reason that validity is now recognized as a unitary concept (APA,1985) and why each of the historic types of validity is limiting in some way.TRADITIONAL TYPES OF VALIDITY AND THEIR LIMITATIONSAt least since the early 1950s, test validity has been broken into threeor four distinct types -- or, more specifically, into three types, one ofwhich comprises two subtypes.These are content validity, predictive andconcurrent criterion-related validity, and construct validity.These threetraditional validity types have been described, with slight paraphrasing,asfollows (APA, 1954, 1966):Content validity is evaluated by showing how well the content of thetest samples the class of situations or subject matter about whichconclusions are to be drawn.Criterion-related validity is evaluated by comparing the test scoreswith one or more external variables (called criteria) considered toprovide a direct measure of the characteristic or behavior inquestion.Predictive validity indicates the extent to which an individual'sfuture level on the criterion is predicted from prior testperformance.Concurrent validity indicates the extent to which the test scoresestimate an individual's present standing on the criterion.Construct validity is evaluated by investigating what qualities atest measures, that is, by determining the degree to which certainexplanatory concepts or constructs account for performance on thetest.With some important shifts in emphasis, these validity conceptions are foundin current testing standards and guidelines.They are given here in theirclassic or traditional version to provide a benchmark against which toappraise the import of subsequent changes, such as a shift in the focus ofcontent validity from the sampling of situations or subject matter to the
- 8 -sampling of domain behaviors or processes and a shift in construct validityfrom being in contradistinction to content and criterion validities tosubsuming the other validity types.Historically, distinctions were not only drawn among three types of1966).validity, but each was related to particular testing aims (APA, 1954,This proved to be especially insidious because it implied that there weretesting purposes for which one or another type of validity was sufficient.For example, content validity was deemed appropriate to support claimsabout an individual's present performance level in a universe of tasks orsituations, criterion-related validity for claims about a person's presentthe test,or future standing on some significant variable different fromand construct validity for claims about the extent to which an individualpossesses some trait or quality reflected in test performance.However, for reasons expounded in detail shortly (see also Messick,1989a, 1989b), neither content nor criterion-related validity alone iss.xfficient to sustain any testing purpose while the generality of constructofvalidity needs to be attuned to the relevance, utility, and consequencesscore interpretation and use in particular applied settings.By comparingof evidencethese so-called validity types with the half dozen or so formsoutlined earlier, one can quickly discern what evidence each validity typerelies on as well as what each leaves out.The remainder of this sectionthe traditionalunderscores salient properties and critical limitations of"types" of validity.Content validity.In its perennial form, content validity is based onthe content of aexpert judgments about the relevance of the test content towithparticular behavioral domain of interest and about the representativeness
- 9 -For example, the relevance andwhich item or task content covers that domain.representativeness of the items in a chemistry achievement test might beappraised relative to material typically covered in curriculum and text booksurveys, the items in a clerical job selection test relative to job propertiesand functions revealed through a job analysis, and the items in a personalitytest relative to the behaviors and applicable situations implicated in aparticular trait theory.Thus, the heart of the notion of so-called contentvalidity is that the test items are samples of a beilavioral domain or itemuniverse about which inferences are to be drawn or predictions made.According to Cronbach (1980), "Logically,.content validation isestablished only in test construction, by specifying a domain of tasks andsampling rigorously.The inference back to the domain can then be purelydeductive" (p. 105).But this inference is not from the sample of test itemsto the domain of knowledge or skill or whatever construct is germane, but tothe "domain" of tasks deemed relevant to that construct.In this regard, itis useful to distinguish the domain of knowledge or other construct from theuniverse of relevant tasks (Messick, 1989b).Judgments of relevance arecritical in specifying the universe of tasks, and judgments of relevance andrepresentativeness help support inferences from the test sample to the taskuniverse.However, these inferences must be tempered by recognizing that thetest not only samples the task universe but casts the sampled tasks in a testformat, thereby raising the spectre of context effects or irrelevant methodvariance possibly distorting test performance vis-A-vis domain performance.Such effects will be discussed shortly.In any event, inferences about theextent to which either the test sample or the task universe taps the constructBEST COPY AVABABLE
-10 -domain of knowledge, skill, or other attribute require not content judgmentbut, rather, construct evidence.Inconsistency or confusion with respect to this distinction betweenconstruct domain and task universe is apparent historically, especiallyin relation to the form of evidence offered to support relevance andrepresentativeness.Content validity has been conceptualized over the yearsin three closely related but distinct ways:in terms of how well the contentof the test samples the content of the domain of interest (APA, 1954, 1966).,the degree to which the behaviors exhibited in test performance constitute arepresentative sample of behaviors displayed in the desired domain performance(APA, 1974), and the extent to which the processes employed by the examineein arriving at test responses are typical of the processes underlying domainresponses (Lennon, 1956).Yet, in practice, content-related evidence usuallytakes the form of consensual professional judgments about the contentrelevance of (presumably construct-valid) items to the specified domainand about the representativeness with which test content covers the domaincontent.But inferences regarding behaviors require evidence of response orperformance consistency and not just judgments of content, whereas inferencesregarding processes require construct-related evidence (Loevinger, 1957).To be more precise about the variety of validity evidence that is ignoredor left out, content validity per se is not concerned with response processes,internal and external test structures, performance differences across groupsand settings, responsiveness of scores to experimental intervention, or withsocial consequenCes.Thus, content validity provides judgmental evidence insupport of the domain relevance and representativeness of the content of thetest instrument, rather than evidence in support of inferences to be made from
test scores.Response consistencies and test scores are not even addressed intypical accounts of content validity.Some test specifications, to be sure,do refer to desired cognitive levels or response processes.But validity inthese instances, being inferred not from test content but from consistenciesin test responses and their correlates, is clearly construct-related.At a fundamental level, then, so-called content validity does notqualify as validity at all, although such considerations of content relevanceand representativeness clearly do and should influence the nature of scoreinferences supported by other evidence.That is, content relevance andrepresentativeness of the test should be consistent with the range orgenerality of the construct interpretation advanced.Contrariwise, thegenerality of the construct interpretation should be limited by the contentrelevance and representativeness of the test, unless sustained by otherevidence of generalizability such as external correlations or factorpatterns with broader construct measures.In addition, the ubiquitous problem of irrelevant test variance,especially method variance, is simply not confronted in the content validityframework, even though irrelevant variance serves to subvert judgments ofcontent relevance.Method variance refers to all systematic effectsassociated with a particular measurement procedure that are extraneous to thefocal construct being measured (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).Included are all ofthe context effects or situational factors (such as an evaluative atmosphere)that influence test performance differently from domain performance(Loevinger, 1957).For example, experts may judge items ostensibly tappingknowledge or reasoning as highly relevant to domain problem solving, but theitems might instead (or in addition) measure reading comprehension.Or,
- 12-objective multiple-choice items aimed at knowledge or skill might contain suchtransparent distractors that they primarily reflect merely testwiseness orcommon sense.As another instance, subjective scores for the persuasivenessof writing might primarily reflect prowess in punctuation and grammar or beinfluenced by the length of the writing sample produced.Indeed, irrelevant test variance contributes, along with other factors,to the ultimate frailty of traditional content validation, namely, thatexpert judgment is fallible and may imperfectly apprehend domain structureor inadequately represent test structure, or both.Thus, as previouslyindicated, content validity alone is insufficient to sustain any testingpurpose, with the possible exception of test samples that are truly domainsamples observed under naturalistic domain conditions.Even here, however,the legitimacy of the test sample as an exemplar of the construct domain mustThe way out of this impasse isultimately rest on construct-related evidence.to evaluate (and inform) expert judgment on the basis of other evidence aboutthe structure of the behavioral domain under consideration as well as aboutthe structure of the test responses -- namely, through construct-relatedevidence.Criterion-related validity.As contrasted with content validity,criterion-related validity is based on the degree of empirical correlationbetween the test scores and criterion scores.This correlation then servesas a basis for using the test scores to predict an individual's standing ona criterion measure of interest such as grade-point average in college orsuccess on a job.As such, criterion-related validity only emphasizesselected parts of the test's external structure.The interest is not in thepattern of relationships of the test scores with other measures generally, but
-13-instead is more narrowly, focussed to spotlight selected relationships withmeasures held to be criterial for a particular applied purpose in a specificapplied setting.Thus, there are as many criterion-related validities for thetest scores as there are criterion measures and settings, and the extent towhich a criterion correlation can be generalized across settings and timeshas become an important and contentious empirical question (Schmidt, Hunter,Pearlman, & Hirsh, with commentary by Sackett, Schmitt, Tenopyr, Keho, &Zedeck, 1985).Essentially, then, criterion-related validity is not concerned withany other sorts of evidence except specific test-criterion correlations or,more generally, the regression system linking the criterion to the predictorscores.measures.However, criterion scores are measures to be evaluated like allThey too may be deficient in capturing the criterion domain ofinterest and may be contaminated by irrelevant variance -- as in supervisors'ratings, for example, which are typically distorted by selective perceptionand by halo effects or other biases.Consequently, potentially deficientand contaminated criterion measures cannot serve as the unequivocal standardsfor validating tests, as is intrinsic in the criterion-oriented approachto validation.Thus, as indicated previously, criterion-related validity per se isinsufficient to sustain any testing purpose, with the possible (thoughextremely unlikely) exception of predictor tests having high correlations withuncontaminated complete criteria.Even here, however, the legitimacy of thecriterion measure as an exemplar of the criterion domain -- that is, theextent to which it captures the criterion construct -- ultimately needs torest on construct-related evidence and rational arguments (Thorndike, 1949).
- 14 -The way out of this paradox -- that criteria, being measures that need to beevaluated in the same manner as tests, cannot serve as the standard forevaluating themselves -- is to evaluate both the criterion measures and thetests in relation to construct theories of the criterion domain.Construct validity.In principle as well as in practice, constructvalidity is based on an integration of any evidence that bears on theinterpretation or meaning of the test scores -- including content- andcriterion-related evidence, which are thus subsumed as aspects of constructvalidity.In construct validation, the test score is not equated with theconstruct it attempts to tap, nor is it considered to define the construct,as in strict operationism (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).Rather, the measure isviewed as just one of an extensible set of indicators of the construct.Convergent empirical relationships reflecting communality among suchindicators are taken to imply the operation of the construct to the degreethat discriminant evidence discounts the intrusion of alternative constructsas plausible rival hypotheses.There are two major threats to construct validity:One is constructunderrepresentation -- that is, the test is too narrow and fails to includeimportant dimensions or facets of the construct; the other is constructirrelevant variance -- that is, the test is too broad and contains excessreliable variance associated with other distinct constructs as well as methodvariance making items or tasks easier or harder for some respondents in amanner irrelevant to the interpreted construct.In essence, constructvalidity comprises the evidence and rationales supporting the trustworthinessof score interpretation in terms of explanatory concepts that account for bothtest performance and score relationships with other variables.
-15 -In its simplest terms, construct validity is the evidential basis forscore interpretation.As an integration of evidence for score meaning, itapplies to any score interpretation -- not just those involving so-called"theoretical constructs."Hence, one should not belabor whether or notconstruct evidence is needed because the score in question might not refer toa theoretical construct -- as, for example, in arguing that teacher competence(referring to the repertoire of specific things Chat teachers know, do, orbelieve) "does not seem like a theoretical construct" (Mehrens, 1987, p. 215).It does not matter whether one contends that competence, knowledge,belief are constructs.skill, orIf test scores are interpreted in these terms, thenconvergent and discriminant evidence should be providedthat high scorersexhibit domain competence (that is, enabling knowledge and skill) in taskperformance -- as opposed to answering the test items on some other basis suchas rote memory, testwiseness, or common sense.More importantly, one must becautious about interpreting low scores as lack of competence without firstdiscounting a number of plausible rival hypotheses for poor test performancesuch as anxiety, fatigue, low motivation, l
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 395 031 TM 025 049 AUTHOR Messick, Samuel TITLE Validity of Test Interpretation and Use. INSTITUTION Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J. REPORT NO ETS-RR-90-11 . Thus, the key issues of test validity are the meaning, relevance, and utility of scores, the import o
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 402 343 TM 025 962 TITLE Ohio Proficiency Tests for Grade 12. Practice. Test. INSTITUTION Ohio State Dept. of Education, Columbus. PUB DATE. 95. NOTE 42p.; For related documents, see TM 025 963 and 025. 965. PUB TYPE Tests/Evaluation Instruments (160) EDRS PRICE M
one piece patented construction maintains the balance necessary to sustain the exothermic reaction cutting rod sustains the burn without constant electrical power once ignited SLICE CUTTING RODS Uncoated Part No. Coated Part No. Description 43-049-002 42-049-002 1/4" x 22" (6.4mm x 55.9cm) 25 each /carton 43-049-003 42-049-003
2 Olson Price SKU No. Width ″ x Thick″x TPI Length 701 2″: Fits 10″ Craftsman 21400 APG703709 1/8 x .025 x 14 Reg APG70382 APG708704 3/16 x .025 3/16x 10 Reg 17.20 APG731702 1/4 x .025 x 6 Hook APG738701 3/8 x .025 x 4 Hook APG73882 APG726708 1/2 x .025 x 3 Hook 18.06 Length 713 4″: Fits 10″ Delta 28-140, and 11″ Shopsmith .
HP 094-600 Outfall 004, BMRR cooling tower discharge, wet pond HW 095-600 Outfall 008, Warehouse stormwater discharge . S5 038-550 Rain Sampler at the Sewage Treatment Plant . 025-TLD1 025-400 Bldg. 1010 beam stop 1 025-TLD4 025-403 Bldg. 1010 beam stop 4 030-TLD1 030-400 East Firebre
100.025.722.000 general fund-police department-100.025.722-professional developement 2129 tri-river police trn. region homicide investigator couri 4044 10/24/2016 150.00 100.025.728.000 general fund - policedepartment-100.025.728-computer contractual services 657 edge consulting 10416 657 edge consulting reimburse equip/sw purchas computer .
MXL 025 (2.032mm) Part Code Number of Teeth Type Mat. Dp De Df Dm Di F L d Flange Code 16 MXL 025 18 MXL 025 20 MXL 025 16 18 20 10.35 11.64 12.94 9.84
DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 188 049. CG 014 443. Prosecutor's Responsibility in Spouse Abuse Cases. INSTITUTION National District Attorneys Association, Chicago, . The role of the prosecutor in spouse assault cases was the subjct of a conference organized by the National-District Att
AngularJS uses dependency injection and make use of separation of concerns. AngularJS provides reusable components. AngularJS viii With AngularJS, the developers can achieve more functionality with short code. In AngularJS, views are pure html pages, and controllers written in JavaScript do the business processing. On the top of everything, AngularJS applications can run on all major browsers .
