Content-Related Validity

Validity is defined as the consistency of the measurement results and the quality of the measure or the ability of a test produce comparable results across repeated measurements within the same parameters or conditions (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013; Bordens & Abbott, 2014). In terms of verifying reliability, however, there are basically three different types of evidence that is used to confirm the validity of a test: construct-related evidence, content-related evidence, and criterion-related evidence (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2013). Content-related evidence of validity, for instance, is defined as being the type of evidence that identifies the association between the questions or items of measure of a test to the content matter that is being evaluated

Face validity basically describes the outward appearance that a test is measuring the items it is expected to measure, even if it is not actually measuring the appropriate construct. Consider this example: most doctors evaluate their patients’ overall health. In order to measure health, however, the doctor may do a routine exam in his or her office, which involves looking for any outward signs of illness or disability by measuring the patients’ heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature. If all of these measures fall within normal limits, the doctor might assume that a patient is healthy. But, as I can personally attest to as a patient with multiple chronic conditions that also took more than 20 years to diagnose, not all signs of illness are easily visible. Even with routine bloodwork, many chronic conditions are often missed because a patient “doesn’t look sick.” Although face validity is not officially a form of validity evidence since it is not formally recognized by the joint committee who wrote and published the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, the concept does warrant some recognition in relation to locating evidence for validity because it does present the façade of validity of a test or measure. Similar to the old adage that “you cannot judge a book by its cover,” the outward

If a test is supposed to measure a person’s intelligence, for example, you wouldn’t subject the individual to personality testing unnecessarily. Instead, you’d want to make sure that the test being given to the test subject is accurately assessing the intelligence quotient (IQ). Construct-related evidence of validity often involves a process that identifies the real meaning or purpose of the test either through repetition or by compiling multiple sources of evidence. The collection of this evidence not only verifies that the tests actually measures what it is meant to measure but it also confirms if any part of the test is irrelevant or unnecessary as well. In order to determine whether or not a particular test is measuring the appropriate construct, however, the researcher or test administrator can compare their test items to historical data or psychological theory to justify the use of these items as a valid measurement. test. There are essentially two types of evidence that helps to identify construct-related validity: convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity evaluates whether or not the actual constructs of the test truly relate to one another or measure similar attributes as other types of measurements that claim to measure the exact same thing as well.