An In-depth Examination of Validity Assessment: Exploring Diverse Methodologies and Dimensions of Validity in Social Research Studies

Mohammad Monis Ansari, Sheema Khan
{"title":"An In-depth Examination of Validity Assessment: Exploring Diverse Methodologies and Dimensions of Validity in Social Research Studies","authors":"Mohammad Monis Ansari, Sheema Khan","doi":"10.9734/ajaees/2023/v41i102224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Validity refers to the extent to which a test accurately measures what it claims to measure. Validity is a matter of degree. The study is done to know the various methods of validity. Validity is a fundamental aspect of research quality, which is why it is important to assess the various methods of validity. Descriptive research was used for the study. It was examined that face validity refers to an indicator that seems to measure its construct “on its face”. Content validity is a form of judgmental validity, that involves determining if a test adequately represents the content domain. Criterion-related validity methods include concurrent and predictive approaches. Construct validity assesses how well theoretical ideas are translated into measurable variables. Face validity involves examining whether a measurement appears suitable based on its operationalization on the face of it. Lawshe's content validity ratio quantifies expert agreement on the essentiality of individual items in a test or scale. In contrast, the content validity index considers overall expert agreement on the representativeness of items collectively within a test or scale. It considers the agreement among experts regarding the content validity of the entire set of items. Cohen’s Kappa is used to assess the level of agreement between two or more raters or observers when coding or categorizing data. The kappa coefficient is particularly useful when chance agreement among raters is possible. Item Objective Congruence evaluates the efficacy of items in measuring one or more objectives, accomplished by an unbiased expert panel provides evidence of content validity. The most significant assessment at this stage is determining if items and objectives are congruent. Concurrent and predictive validity are assessed using Pearson's correlation and Spearman rank correlation coefficients respectively. The Multi-trait Multimethod Matrix (MTMM), evaluates the construct validity of measures. Validity is essential for ensuring credible and meaningful research findings by enhancing the trustworthiness of the measuring instruments.","PeriodicalId":492946,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology","volume":"176 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2023/v41i102224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Validity refers to the extent to which a test accurately measures what it claims to measure. Validity is a matter of degree. The study is done to know the various methods of validity. Validity is a fundamental aspect of research quality, which is why it is important to assess the various methods of validity. Descriptive research was used for the study. It was examined that face validity refers to an indicator that seems to measure its construct “on its face”. Content validity is a form of judgmental validity, that involves determining if a test adequately represents the content domain. Criterion-related validity methods include concurrent and predictive approaches. Construct validity assesses how well theoretical ideas are translated into measurable variables. Face validity involves examining whether a measurement appears suitable based on its operationalization on the face of it. Lawshe's content validity ratio quantifies expert agreement on the essentiality of individual items in a test or scale. In contrast, the content validity index considers overall expert agreement on the representativeness of items collectively within a test or scale. It considers the agreement among experts regarding the content validity of the entire set of items. Cohen’s Kappa is used to assess the level of agreement between two or more raters or observers when coding or categorizing data. The kappa coefficient is particularly useful when chance agreement among raters is possible. Item Objective Congruence evaluates the efficacy of items in measuring one or more objectives, accomplished by an unbiased expert panel provides evidence of content validity. The most significant assessment at this stage is determining if items and objectives are congruent. Concurrent and predictive validity are assessed using Pearson's correlation and Spearman rank correlation coefficients respectively. The Multi-trait Multimethod Matrix (MTMM), evaluates the construct validity of measures. Validity is essential for ensuring credible and meaningful research findings by enhancing the trustworthiness of the measuring instruments.
效度评估之深入检视:探索社会研究中不同的效度方法与维度
效度指的是测试准确测量其声称要测量的内容的程度。有效性是一个程度问题。本研究是为了了解不同的效度方法。效度是研究质量的一个基本方面,这就是为什么评估各种效度方法很重要。本研究采用描述性研究。研究发现,“脸效度”指的是一种似乎是“在脸上”衡量其结构的指标。内容效度是判断效度的一种形式,它涉及到确定一个测试是否充分地代表了内容领域。与效标相关的效度方法包括并发法和预测法。结构效度评估理论思想转化为可测量变量的程度。面部效度是指根据测量结果在表面上的可操作性来检验测量结果是否合适。Lawshe的内容效度比量化了专家对测试或量表中单个项目的重要性的共识。相比之下,内容效度指数考虑的是专家对测试或量表内项目集体代表性的总体同意。它考虑专家之间关于整套项目的内容有效性的协议。科恩的Kappa是用来评估两个或两个以上的评分者或观察者之间的协议水平编码或分类数据。当评分者之间可能偶然达成一致时,卡帕系数特别有用。项目目标一致性评估项目在测量一个或多个目标的有效性,由一个公正的专家小组完成,提供内容效度的证据。这个阶段最重要的评估是确定项目和目标是否一致。并发效度和预测效度分别采用Pearson相关系数和Spearman秩相关系数进行评估。采用多特征多方法矩阵(MTMM)评价测度的构造效度。效度是通过提高测量工具的可信度来确保可信和有意义的研究结果的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信