05/02/2023

Assignment onVALIDITY AND ITS TYPESubmitted to : Dr. GHIAS UL HAQ.Submitted by: Noorulhadi Qureshi (PhD Scholar)

SARHAD UNIVERSITY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, PESHAWAR.

SlideNo. 1

A rather basic definition of validity is “the degree to which a test measures what is it supposed to measure.” Although this definition is relatively common and straightforward, it oversimplifies the issue a bit.

* Brains, Willnat, Manheim, Rich 2011. Empirical Political Analysis 8th edition. Boston, MA: Longman p. 105

Concept of validity

Someone might tell you that a hammer is a useful tool, but the usefulness of a hammer actually depends on the job to be done.

Supporting above definition

A better definition, reflecting the most contemporary perspective, is that validity is “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by the proposed uses” of a test (AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999, p. 9).

“The American Education Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) published a revision of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing”

Better definition

This more sophisticated definition has a number of important implications. First, a measure itself is neither valid nor invalid; rather, the issue of validity concerns the interpretations and uses of a measure’s scores. Narrow to down. Top to down.

(AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999), (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Important implication

A second important implication of the definition of validity is that validity is a matter of degree, it is not an “all-or-none” issue. That is, the validity of a test interpretation should be conceived in terms of strong versus weak instead of simply valid or invalid. There is no magical threshold beyond which validity is established.

(AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999), (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992).

2nd important implication

A third important factor of validity is that the validity of a test’s interpretation is based on evidence and theory

AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999), (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992).

3rd important implicatopm

Although such choices are based on a number of practical, theoretical, and psychometric factors, a test should be selected only if there is strong enough evidence supporting the intended interpretation and use.

Strong enough Evidence

Validity is the extent to which a  concept conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world.

Kendell, R; Jablensky, A (2003). "Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 160 (1): pp 4–12.

Validity measure relevant test, proper measurement, theoretical interpretation.

My understanding on validity

Validity is important because it can help determine what types of tests to use, and help to make sure researchers are using methods

Some more definition

Validity

Test Validity Experimental Validity

Test validity

1.1Validity (accuracy)

1.2Construct validity

1.3Content validity

1.3.1Face validity

1.4Criterion validity

1.4.1Concurrent validity

1.4.2Predictive validity

Experimental validity

2.1Statistical conclusion validity

2.2Internal validity

2.3External validity

2.3.1Ecological validity

2.3.2Relationship to internal validity

validity is really about test interpretation and use (not about the test itself), test users often refer to the “validity of a test.”

Test Validity

Test validity

1.1Validity (accuracy)

1.2Construct validity

1.3Content validity

1.3.1Face validity

1.4Criterion validity

1.4.1Concurrent validity

1.4.2Predictive validity

1.1Validity (accuracy)Validity of an assessment is the degree to which it measures what it is supposed to measure. This is not the same as reliability, which is the extent to which a measurement gives result that are very consistent. Within validity, the measurement does not always have to be similar, as it does in reliability. However, just because a measure is reliable, it is not necessarily valid (and vice versa). Validity is also dependent on the measurement measuring what it was designed to measure, and not something else instead. Validity (similar to reliability) is a relative concept; validity is not an all-or-nothing idea.

Test validity

Construct validity evidence involves the empirical and theoretical support for the interpretation of the construct. Such lines of evidence include statistical analyses of the internal structure of the test including the relationships between responses to different test items. They also include relationships between the test and measures of other constructs. As currently understood, construct validity is not distinct from the support for the substantive theory of the construct that the test is designed to measure. As such, experiments designed to reveal aspects of the causal role of the construct also contribute to construct validity evidence.

Cronbach, Lee J.; Meehl, Paul E. (1955). "Construct validity in psychological tests.". Psychological Bulletin. 52 (4): 281–302.

Construct validity

Face validity could easily be called surface validity or appearance validity since it is merely a subjective, superficial assessment of whether the measurement procedure you use in a study appears to be a valid measure of a given variable .

Content validity, sometimes called logical or rational validity, is the estimate of how much a measure represents every single element of a variable. All aspect of theory.

Cozby, Paul C.. Methods in behavioral research. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009.

Content vs facial validity

Criterion validity evidence involves the correlation between the test and a criterion variable (or variables) taken as representative of the construct. In other words, it compares the test with other measures or outcomes (the criteria) already held to be valid. For example, employee selection tests are often validated against measures of job performance (the criterion), and IQ tests are often validated against measures of academic performance (the criterion).

Criterion validity

Predictive Validity: if the test accurately predicts what it is supposed to predict. For example, the SAT exhibits predictive validity for performance in college. It can also refer to when scores from the predictor measure are taken first and then the criterion data is collected later.

Concurrent Validity: when the predictor and criterion data are collected at the same time. It can also refer to when a test replaces another test (i.e. because it’s cheaper). For example, a written driver’s test replaces an in-person test with an instructor.

The two types of criterion validity

The validity of the design of experimental research studies is a fundamental part of the scientific method, and a concern of research ethics. Without a valid design, valid scientific conclusions cannot be drawn.

2. Experimental validity

Experimental validity

2.1Statistical conclusion validity

2.2Internal validity

2.3External validity

2.3.1Ecological validity

2.3.2Relationship to internal validity

Statistical conclusion validity involves ensuring the use of adequate sampling procedures, appropriate statistical tests, and reliable measurement procedures.

Statistical conclusion validity

Internal validity is an inductive estimate of the degree to which conclusions about causal relationships can be made (e.g. cause and effect), based on the measures used, the research setting, and the whole research design. Good experimental techniques, in which the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable is studied under highly controlled conditions, usually allow for higher degrees of internal validity

Internal validity 

External validity concerns the extent to which the (internally valid) results of a study can be held to be true for other cases, for example to different people, places or times. In other words, it is about whether findings can be validly generalized. If the same research study was conducted in those other cases, would it get the same results.

External validity 

Ecological validity is the extent to which research results can be applied to real-life situations outside of research settings. This issue is closely related to external validity but covers the question of to what degree experimental findings mirror what can be observed in the real world (ecology = the science of interaction between organism and its environment). To be ecologically valid, the methods, materials and setting of a study must approximate the real-life situation that is under investigation.

Foxcroft, C., Paterson, H., le Roux, N., & Herbst, D. Human Sciences Research Council, (2004). 'Psychological assessment in South Africa: A needs analysis: The test use patterns and needs of psychological assessment practitioners: Final Report: July. Retrieved from website:http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/1716_Foxcroft_Psychologicalassessmentin%20SA.pdf

Ecological validity

On first glance, internal and external validity seem to contradict each other – to get an experimental design you have to control for all interfering variables. That is why you often conduct your experiment in a laboratory setting. While gaining internal validity (excluding interfering variables by keeping them constant) you lose ecological or external validity because you establish an artificial laboratory setting. On the other hand, with observational research you can not control for interfering variables (low internal validity) but you can measure in the natural (ecological) environment, at the place where behavior normally occurs. However, in doing so, you sacrifice internal validity.

The apparent contradiction of internal validity and external validity is, however, only superficial. The question of whether results from a particular study generalize to other people, places or times arises only when one follows an inductivist research strategy. If the goal of a study is to deductively test a theory, one is only concerned with factors which might undermine the rigor of the study, i.e. threats to internal validity.

Relationship to internal validity.

Dr.?Ask question for discussion,

 American Educational Research Association, Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Anne Lewellyn Barstow (Witchcraze) adjusted Levack's estimate to account for lost records, estimating 100,000 deaths. Ronald Hutton (Triumph of the Moon) argues that Levack's estimate had already been adjusted for these, and revises the figure to approximately 40,000.

Brains, Willnat, Manheim, Rich 2011. Empirical Political Analysis 8th edition. Boston, MA: Longman p. 105 Brian Levack (The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe) multiplied the number of known European witch trials by the

average rate of conviction and execution, to arrive at a figure of around 60,000 deaths.  Cozby, Paul C.. Methods in behavioral research. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009. Cronbach, Lee J.; Meehl, Paul E. (1955). "Construct validity in psychological tests.". Psychological Bulletin. 52 (4): 281–

302.  Foxcroft, C., Paterson, H., le Roux, N., & Herbst, D. Human Sciences Research Council, (2004). 'Psychological assessment

in South Africa: A needs analysis: The test use patterns and needs of psychological assessment practitioners: Final Report: July. Retrieved from website:http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/1716_Foxcroft_Psychologicalassessmentin%20SA.pdf

Kendell, R; Jablensky, A (2003). "Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 160 (1):

Kendler, KS (2006). "Reflections on the relationship between psychiatric genetics and psychiatric nosology". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 163 (7):

Kramer, Geoffrey P., Douglas A. Bernstein, and Vicky Phares. Introduction to clinical psychology. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.

National Council on Measurement in Education.  http://www.ncme.org/ncme/NCME/Resource_Center/ Perri, FS; Lichtenwald, TG (2010). "The Precarious Use Of Forensic Psychology As Evidence: The Timothy Masters

Case" (PDF). Champion Magazine (July): 34–45. Robins and Guze proposed in 1970 what were to become influential formal criteria for establishing the validity of

psychiatric diagnoses.

References