Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Content validity is most often addressed in academic and vocational testing, where test items need to reflect the knowledge actually required for a given topic area (e.g., history) or job skill (e.g., accounting). In clinical settings, content validity refers to the correspondence between test items and the symptom content of a syndrome.
Content validity: Good The VADRS contains items typical of ADHD measures that are also based on DSM-IV criteria in addition to items relating to other behaviors and disorders likely in children such as general school functioning and conduct disorder. [2] Construct validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity) Good
E.g. a scale that is 5 pounds off is reliable but not 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. [6] Validity (similar to reliability) is a relative concept; validity is not an all-or-nothing idea.
The phenomenon where validity is sacrificed to increase reliability is known as the attenuation paradox. [35] [36] A high value of reliability can conflict with content validity. To achieve high content validity, each item should comprehensively represent the content to be measured.
The construct validation approach that was used to construct the PAI was used to maximize two types of validity: content validity and discriminant validity. To ensure that the PAI maximized content validity, each scale had a balanced sample of items that represented a range of important items for each construct.
In statistics, inter-rater reliability (also called by various similar names, such as inter-rater agreement, inter-rater concordance, inter-observer reliability, inter-coder reliability, and so on) is the degree of agreement among independent observers who rate, code, or assess the same phenomenon.
Cohen's kappa measures the agreement between two raters who each classify N items into C mutually exclusive categories. The definition of is =, where p o is the relative observed agreement among raters, and p e is the hypothetical probability of chance agreement, using the observed data to calculate the probabilities of each observer randomly selecting each category.
The exercise is also an important tool for demonstrating content validity when compared with the source. During the interview, the respondents complete the questionnaire, and then answer a series of open-ended questions on its content and explain what they think each item means in their own words.