Convergent validity Discriminant validity I have to warn you here that I made this list up. I've never heard of "translation" validity before, but I needed a good name to summarize what both face and content validity are getting at, and that one seemed sensible. All of the other labels are commonly known, but the way I've organized them is different than I've seen elsewhere.
Precision and accuracy Validity  of an assessment is the degree to which it measures what it is supposed to measure. This is not the same as reliabilitywhich is the extent to which a measurement gives results 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 eg. A scale that is 5 pounds off is reliable but not valid. A test cannot be valid unless it is reliable.
Validity is also dependent on the measurement measuring what it was designed to measure, and not something else instead. There are many different types of validity. Construct validity Construct validity refers to the extent to which operationalizations of a construct e.
It subsumes all other types of validity.
For example, the extent to which a test measures intelligence is a question of construct validity. A measure of intelligence presumes, among other things, that the measure is associated with things it should be associated with convergent validitynot associated with things it should not be associated with discriminant validity.
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. For example, does an IQ questionnaire have items covering all areas of intelligence discussed in the scientific literature? Content validity evidence involves the degree to which the content of the test matches a content domain associated with the construct.
For example, a test of the ability to add two numbers should include a range of combinations of digits. A test with only one-digit numbers, or only even numbers, would not have good coverage of the content domain.
Content related evidence typically involves a subject matter expert SME evaluating test items against the test specifications. Items are chosen so that they comply with the test specification which is drawn up through a thorough examination of the subject domain.
The experts will be able to review the items and comment on whether the items cover a representative sample of the behaviour domain. Face validity[ edit ] Face validity is an estimate of whether a test appears to measure a certain criterion; it does not guarantee that the test actually measures phenomena in that domain.
Measures may have high validity, but when the test does not appear to be measuring what it is, it has low face validity. Indeed, when a test is subject to faking malingeringlow face validity might make the test more valid. Considering one may get more honest answers with lower face validity, it is sometimes important to make it appear as though there is low face validity whilst administering the measures.
Face validity is very closely related to content validity. While content validity depends on a theoretical basis for assuming if a test is assessing all domains of a certain criterion e. To answer this you have to know, what different kinds of arithmetic skills mathematical skills include face validity relates to whether a test appears to be a good measure or not.
This judgment is made on the "face" of the test, thus it can also be judged by the amateur. Face validity is a starting point, but should never be assumed to be probably valid for any given purpose, as the "experts" have been wrong before—the Malleus Malificarum Hammer of Witches had no support for its conclusions other than the self-imagined competence of two "experts" in "witchcraft detection," yet it was used as a "test" to condemn and burn at the stake tens of thousands men and women as "witches.
In other words, it compares the test with other measures or outcomes the criteria already held to be valid.Convergent validity and Discriminant validity together demonstrate construct validity. Nomological network Defined by Cronbach and Meehl, this is the set of relationships between constructs and between consequent measures.
To determine whether your research has validity, you need to consider all three types of validity using the tripartite model developed by Cronbach & Meehl in , as shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: The tripartite view of validity, which includes criterion-related, content and construct validity.
External Validity. External validity is about generalization: To what extent can an effect in research, be generalized to populations, settings, treatment variables, and measurement variables?. External validity is usually split into two distinct types, population validity and ecological validity and they are both essential elements in judging the strength of an .
Validity is a judgment based on various types of evidence. The relevant evidence includes the measure’s reliability, whether it covers the construct of interest, and whether the scores it produces are correlated with other variables they are expected to be correlated with and not correlated with variables that are conceptually distinct.
Research validity in surveys relates to the extent at which the survey measures right elements that need to be measured. In simple terms, validity refers to how well an instrument as measures what it is intended to measure.
There are four main types of validity: Face validity is the extent to which a tool appears to measure what it is supposed to measure. Construct validity .