Establishing Validity in Qualitative Research Establishing Validity in Qualitative Research The following module discusses reliability and validity in qualitative research, with an emphasis on establishing credibility and transferability.
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. 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 Validity research methods different types of Validity research methods.
Quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques. Quantitative research focuses on gathering. pdf version of this page. Part I: The Instrument. Instrument is the general term that researchers use for a measurement device (survey, test, questionnaire, etc.).To help distinguish between instrument and instrumentation, consider that the instrument is the device and instrumentation is the course of action (the process of developing, testing, and using the device). There's an awful lot of confusion in the methodological literature that stems from the wide variety of labels that are used to describe the validity of measures.
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 constructing 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.
Before going to the final administration of questionnaires, the researcher should consult the validity of items against each of the constructs or variables and accordingly modify measurement instruments on the basis of SME's opinion.
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 behavior 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. For example, employee selection tests are often validated against measures of job performance the criterionand IQ tests are often validated against measures of academic performance the criterion.
If the test data and criterion data are collected at the same time, this is referred to as concurrent validity evidence.
If the test data are collected first in order to predict criterion data collected at a later point in time, then this is referred to as predictive validity evidence.
Concurrent validity[ edit ] Concurrent validity refers to the degree to which the operationalization correlates with other measures of the same construct that are measured at the same time.Different methods vary with regard to these two aspects of validity. Experiments, because they tend to be structured and controlled, are often high on internal validity.
However, their strength with regard to structure and control, may result in low external validity. pdf version of this page.
Part I: The Instrument. Instrument is the general term that researchers use for a measurement device (survey, test, questionnaire, etc.).To help distinguish between instrument and instrumentation, consider that the instrument is the device and instrumentation is the course of action (the process of developing, testing, and using the device).
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 . Let's use all of the other validity terms to reflect different ways you can demonstrate different aspects of construct validity.
With all that in mind, here's a list of the validity types that are typically mentioned in texts and research papers when talking about the quality of measurement. INTERNAL VALIDITY is affected by flaws within the study itself such as not controlling some of the major variables (a design problem), or problems with the research instrument (a data collection problem).
In this research design, subjects are randomly assigned into four different groups: experimental with both pre-posttests, experimental with no pretest, control with pre-posttests, and control without pretests.