Validity of Psychological Measures

Tests and Measurements

Professor Richard Thompson

Validity

Validityis the extent to which the scores from a measure represent the variable they are

intended to. When research has a high level of validity, it delivers results that correspond to real-

world traits, characteristics, and variances. One evidence of a measurement's validity is its high

dependability. Validity is divided into several distinct "categories" in discussions. There are three

types of validity namely; three basic kinds: face validity, content validity, and criterion validity

(Messick, 1995).

Face validity

Face validity measures how representative a research project appears to be at face value' and

whether it appears to be a good project, as the name suggests. Face validity differs from content

validity in that it aims to determine how well an experiment resembles what it is attempting to test

(Furr, 2011). According to Haynes et al. (1995), face validity is a broader measure in which the

subjects often have input, whereas content validity is carefully analyzed. For instance, you can ask

for comments after students take a test, specifically if they thought the test was good. This further

refines the subsequent research study and provides a new dimension to the validation process.

Construct validity

Construct validity measures how well your concepts or theories were transformed into practical

programs or measures. Construct validity is demonstrated experimentally when a survey

distinguishes between people who have and do not have particular qualities (Messick, 1995). For

example, according to the survey researcher, the new measure correlates with one or more measures

of a similar feature (convergent validity) but not with measures of different qualities (discriminant

validity) (Furr, 2011). For example, while validating a new quality-of-life survey, a survey

researcher may claim that it is highly linked with another quality-of-life instrument, a measure of

functioning, and a measure of health status. Simultaneously, the survey researcher would expect that

the new measure have no relationship with selected measures of social desirability (the tendency to

answer questions in a positive light) or antagonism (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).

The various ways to demonstrate construct validity

The correlation coefficient is commonly used to estimate how two metrics are related to one

another in construct validity. To put it another way, we look at the patterns of intercorrelations

between our variables. Correlations between measures that are theoretically similar should be "high,"

while correlations between measures that are theoretically distinct should be "low” (Messick, 1995).

The other option is an intervention study, where a group with low scores in the construct is

tested, taught the construct, and then re-measured. If there is a substantial difference between the

pre-and post-test, which can usually be determined using basic statistical tests, then construct

validity has been established (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).

Validity Approach I Would Use For My Measure

Construct validity is the best approach I would use for my measure. I chose this validity

approach since when the scores from a new measurement process are directly related to the scores

from a well-established measurement procedure for the same concept, concurrent validity is

established; the scores from the two measurement procedures have a consistent relationship. This

assures us that the two measurement methods are measuring the same thing (i.e., the same construct)

(Furr, 2011).

References

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Validity. In Quantitative applications in the social

sciences: Reliability and validity assessment (pp.17–27). SAGE.

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/

10.4135/9781412985642

Furr, R. M. (2011). Evaluating psychometric properties: validity. In Scale construction and

psychometrics for social and personality psychology (pp. 52–66). SAGE.

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/

10.4135/9781446287866

Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological

assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.Psychological

Assessment,7(3): 238-247.

Messick S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’

responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning.Am.

Psychol.50(9):741−49. An important paper emphasizing that validity refers to

interpretations of test scores.

Students also viewed