Predictive validity. In: Michalos AC, eds. Ginty AT. Construct validity. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Springer, New York, NY; Johnson E. Face validity. In: Volkmar FR, ed. Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm.
Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for VerywellMind. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page.
These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. I Accept Show Purposes.
Table of Contents View All. Table of Contents. Content Validity. Criterion-Related Validity. Construct Validity. Face Validity. Reliability vs. Internal and External Validity Internal and external validity are used to determine whether or not the results of an experiment are meaningful. Frequently Asked Questions What is external validity in psychology?
What is internal validity in psychology? What is the difference between reliability and validity in psychology? If the prediction is born out then the test has predictive validity. Cronbach, L. Psychological Bulletin , 52, Hathaway, S. Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. New York: Psychological Corporation. Nevo, B. Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement , 22 4 , McLeod, S.
What is validity? Simply Psychology. Toggle navigation. Research Methods Validity What is Validity? What is Validity? Saul McLeod , published What is the meaning of validity in research?
We have already considered one factor that they take into account—reliability. When a measure has good test-retest reliability and internal consistency, researchers should be more confident that the scores represent what they are supposed to. There has to be more to it, however, because a measure can be extremely reliable but have no validity whatsoever. Although this measure would have extremely good test-retest reliability, it would have absolutely no validity.
Here we consider three basic kinds: face validity, content validity, and criterion validity. Most people would expect a self-esteem questionnaire to include items about whether they see themselves as a person of worth and whether they think they have good qualities. So a questionnaire that included these kinds of items would have good face validity. The finger-length method of measuring self-esteem, on the other hand, seems to have nothing to do with self-esteem and therefore has poor face validity.
Although face validity can be assessed quantitatively—for example, by having a large sample of people rate a measure in terms of whether it appears to measure what it is intended to—it is usually assessed informally. Face validity is at best a very weak kind of evidence that a measurement method is measuring what it is supposed to. It is also the case that many established measures in psychology work quite well despite lacking face validity.
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 MMPI-2 measures many personality characteristics and disorders by having people decide whether each of over different statements applies to them—where many of the statements do not have any obvious relationship to the construct that they measure. For example, if a researcher conceptually defines test anxiety as involving both sympathetic nervous system activation leading to nervous feelings and negative thoughts, then his measure of test anxiety should include items about both nervous feelings and negative thoughts.
Or consider that attitudes are usually defined as involving thoughts, feelings, and actions toward something. By this conceptual definition, a person has a positive attitude toward exercise to the extent that he or she thinks positive thoughts about exercising, feels good about exercising, and actually exercises. Like face validity, content validity is not usually assessed quantitatively. Instead, it is assessed by carefully checking the measurement method against the conceptual definition of the construct.
But if it were found that people scored equally well on the exam regardless of their test anxiety scores, then this would cast doubt on the validity of the measure. A criterion can be any variable that one has reason to think should be correlated with the construct being measured, and there will usually be many of them. For example, one would expect test anxiety scores to be negatively correlated with exam performance and course grades and positively correlated with general anxiety and with blood pressure during an exam.
Or imagine that a researcher develops a new measure of physical risk taking. Criteria can also include other measures of the same construct. For example, one would expect new measures of test anxiety or physical risk taking to be positively correlated with existing measures of the same constructs.
This is known as convergent validity. Assessing convergent validity requires collecting data using the measure. Discriminant validity , on the other hand, is the extent to which scores on a measure are not correlated with measures of variables that are conceptually distinct.
Differences in the testing environment, such as room temperature, lighting, noise, or even the test administrator, can influence an individual's test performance. Test form. Many tests have more than one version or form. Items differ on each form, but each form is supposed to measure the same thing. Different forms of a test are known as parallel forms or alternate forms.
These forms are designed to have similar measurement characteristics, but they contain different items. Because the forms are not exactly the same, a test taker might do better on one form than on another. Multiple raters. In certain tests, scoring is determined by a rater's judgments of the test taker's performance or responses. Differences in training, experience, and frame of reference among raters can produce different test scores for the test taker.
0コメント