提示有效性的简短说明

Q2 Psychology
Piet van Tuijl, Peter Verboon, Jacques van Lankveld
{"title":"提示有效性的简短说明","authors":"Piet van Tuijl,&nbsp;Peter Verboon,&nbsp;Jacques van Lankveld","doi":"10.1016/j.metip.2025.100180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In questionnaire development, content validity is usually operationalized by using items that comprehensively express all aspects of the object of measurement. We argue that this often leads to content coverage that is too broad, and that content validity needs pruning down when the intention is to measure conditions or constructs that should be discerned from other conditions or constructs – which is almost always the case. This pruned-down version of content validity we name “cue validity”, signifying the uniqueness of indicators for a construct. We show what negative consequences have been of ignoring cue validity in previously developed questionnaires and illustrate how taking cue validity into account can guide the validation of new questionnaires.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":93338,"journal":{"name":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A short note on cue validity\",\"authors\":\"Piet van Tuijl,&nbsp;Peter Verboon,&nbsp;Jacques van Lankveld\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.metip.2025.100180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In questionnaire development, content validity is usually operationalized by using items that comprehensively express all aspects of the object of measurement. We argue that this often leads to content coverage that is too broad, and that content validity needs pruning down when the intention is to measure conditions or constructs that should be discerned from other conditions or constructs – which is almost always the case. This pruned-down version of content validity we name “cue validity”, signifying the uniqueness of indicators for a construct. We show what negative consequences have been of ignoring cue validity in previously developed questionnaires and illustrate how taking cue validity into account can guide the validation of new questionnaires.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Methods in Psychology (Online)\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100180\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Methods in Psychology (Online)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260125000062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methods in Psychology (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590260125000062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在问卷开发中,内容效度通常通过使用全面表达测量对象的各个方面的项目来操作。我们认为,这通常会导致内容覆盖范围太广,并且当意图是衡量应该与其他条件或结构区分开来的条件或结构时,内容效度需要修剪-这几乎总是这种情况。我们将这种内容效度的精简版本命名为“提示效度”,表示一个结构的指示符的唯一性。我们展示了在以前开发的问卷中忽略线索效度的负面后果,并说明了如何考虑线索效度可以指导新问卷的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A short note on cue validity
In questionnaire development, content validity is usually operationalized by using items that comprehensively express all aspects of the object of measurement. We argue that this often leads to content coverage that is too broad, and that content validity needs pruning down when the intention is to measure conditions or constructs that should be discerned from other conditions or constructs – which is almost always the case. This pruned-down version of content validity we name “cue validity”, signifying the uniqueness of indicators for a construct. We show what negative consequences have been of ignoring cue validity in previously developed questionnaires and illustrate how taking cue validity into account can guide the validation of new questionnaires.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Methods in Psychology (Online)
Methods in Psychology (Online) Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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