Assessing The Validity of Test

What is the meaning of validity in research?
The concept of validity was formulated by Kelly (1927, p. 14) who stated that a
test is valid if it measures what it claims to measure.
For example a test of intelligence should measure intelligence and not something
else (such as memory).
A distinction can be made between internal and external validity. These types of
validity are relevant to evaluating the validity of a research study / procedure.
What is internal and external validity in research?

Internal validity refers to whether the effects observed in a study are due to the
manipulation of the independent variable and not some other factor.
In-other-words there is a causal relationship between the independent and
dependent variable.
Internal validity can be improved by controlling extraneous variables, using
standardized instructions, counter balancing, and eliminating demand
characteristics and investigator effects.
External validity refers to the extent to which the results of a study can be
generalized to other settings (ecological validity), other people (population
validity) and over time (historical validity).
External validity can be improved by setting experiments in a more natural
setting and using random sampling to select participants.
Assessing the Validity of Test

There are two main categories of validity used to assess the validity of test (i.e.
questionnaire, interview, IQ test etc.): Content and criterion.
What is face validity in research?

Face validity is simply whether the test appears (at face value) to measure what it
claims to. This is the least sophisticated measure of validity.
Tests wherein the purpose is clear, even to naïve respondents, are said to have
high face validity. Accordingly, tests wherein the purpose is unclear have low face
validity (Nevo, 1985).
A direct measurement of face validity is obtained by asking people to rate the
validity of a test as it appears to them. This rater could use a likert scale to assess
face validity. For example:
1. - the test is extremely suitable for a given purpose

2. - the test is very suitable for that purpose;
3. - the test is adequate
4. - the test is inadequate
5. - the test is irrelevant and therefore unsuitable
It is important to select suitable people to rate a test (e.g. questionnaire,

interview, IQ test etc.). For example, individuals who actually take the test would
be well placed to judge its face validity.
Also people who work with the test could offer their opinion (e.g. employers,
university administrators, employers). Finally, the researcher could use members
of the general public with an interest in the test (e.g. parents of testees,
politicians, teachers etc.).
The face validity of a test can be considered a robust construct only if a
reasonable level of agreement exists among raters.
It should be noted that the term face validity should be avoided when the rating is
done by "expert" as content validity is more appropriate.
Having face validity does not mean that a test really measures what the
researcher intends to measure, but only in the judgment of raters that it appears
to do so. Consequently it is a crude and basic measure of validity.
A test item such as 'I have recently thought of killing myself' has obvious face
validity as an item measuring suicidal cognitions, and may be useful when
measuring symptoms of depression.
However, the implications of items on tests with clear face validity is that they are
more vulnerable to social desirability bias. Individuals may manipulate their
response to deny or hide problems, or exaggerate behaviours to present a positive
images of themselves.
It is possible for a test item to lack face validity but still have general validity and
measure what it claims to measure. This is good because it reduces demand
characteristics and makes it harder for respondents to manipulate their answers.
For example, the test item 'I believe in the second coming of Christ' would lack
face validity as a measure of depression (as the purpose of the item is unclear).
This item appeared on the first version of The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) and loaded on the depression scale.
Because most of the original normative sample of the MMPI were good
Christians only a depression Christian would think Christ is not coming back.
Thus, for this particular religious sample the item does have general validity, but
not face validity.
What is construct validity in research?

Construct validity was invented by Cornball and Meehl (1955). This type of
validity refers to the extent to which a test captures a specific theoretical
construct or trait, and it overlaps with some of the other aspects of validity
Construct validity does not concern the simple, factual question of whether a test
measures an attribute.
Instead it is about the complex question of whether test score interpretations are
consistent with a nomological network involving theoretical and observational
terms (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).
To test for construct validity it must be demonstrated that the phenomenon being
measured actually exists. So, the construct validity of a test for intelligence, for
example, is dependent on a model or theory of intelligence.
Construct validity entails demonstrating the power of such a construct to explain
a network of research findings and to predict further relationships.
The more evidence a researcher can demonstrate for a test's construct validity the
better. However, there is no single method of determining the construct validity
of a test.
Instead, different methods and approaches are combined to present the overall
construct validity of a test. For example, factor analysis and correlational
methods can be used.
What is concurrent validity in research?

This is the degree to which a test corresponds to an external criterion that is
known concurrently (i.e. occurring at the same time).
If the new test is validated by a comparison with a currently existing criterion, we
have concurrent validity.
Very often, a new IQ or personality test might be compared with an older but
similar test known to have good validity already.
What is predictive validity in research?

This is the degree to which a test accurately predicts a criterion that will occur in
the future.
For example, a prediction may be made on the basis of a new intelligence test,
that high scorers at age 12 will be more likely to obtain university degrees several
years later. If the prediction is born out then the test has predictive validity.

Assessing The Validity of Test

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing The Validity of Test

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing The Validity of Test

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the meaning of validity in research?

What is internal and external validity in research?

Assessing the Validity of Test

What is face validity in research?

1. - the test is extremely suitable for a given purpose

It is important to select suitable people to rate a test (e.g. questionnaire,

What is construct validity in research?

What is concurrent validity in research?

What is predictive validity in research?

You might also like