DESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53555/eijmhs.v1i2.91Keywords:
content validity, descriptive analysis of median, aberrant judges, psychometricAbstract
This research addresses the lack of psychometrically some research instruments. Analysis of content validity was conducted by using descriptive method for some research measures. Descriptive analysis of median was conducted on the ratings from the expert panel members. Expert panel of four judges specialized in psychometrics, English language, and industry were asked to rate the relevancy of items to their domains in order to obtain evidence of content validity. No items were deleted from this study. This research aims to bring more attention to the importance of psychometric properties in some research measures. It is also hoped to shed some lights on which content validity analysis would best be used under certain circumstances. Limitations of study were also discussed.
References
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 131-142.
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M.(1979). Introduction to measurement theory.California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.
Frisbie, D. A. (1988).Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement, module 3, 55-65.
Harvill, L. M. (1991). Standard error of measurement.Instructional Topics in Educational Measurement module 9, 181- 189.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 238-247.
Hellsten, L. M. (2008). Accumulating content validity evidence: Assessing expert panel ratings of item relevance and representativeness. Presented at the 2008 National Council on Measurement in Education Annual Conference, New York, NY, March 25, 2008.
Hellsten, L. M. (2009a). Educational Psychology 844: Accumulating Evidence of Content Validity.Unpublished Presentation, University of Saskatchewan.
Hellsten, L. M. (2009b) Education Psychology 844: Validity and Reliability. Unpublished Presentation, University of Saskatchewan.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21 (5), 967-988.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group inter-rater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity.Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.
Lu, K. H. (1971). A measure of agreement among subjective judgments.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 75-84.
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity.Nursing Research, 35, (6), 382-385. McDermott, P. A., & Watkins, M. W. (1979). A program to evaluate general and conditional agreement among categorical assignments of many raters. Behaviour Research Methods and Instrumentation, 11, 399-400.
Messick, S. (1990).Validity of test interpretation and use. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendation.Research in Nursing & Health, 30, 459-467.
Tinsley, H.E., & Weiss, D. J. (1975).Inter-rater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 358-376.
Wynd, C. A., Schmidt, B., & Schaefer, M.A. (2003). Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity.
Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25, 508-518.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 EPH - International Journal of Medical and Health Science (ISSN: 2456 - 6063)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
