Submitted to : Dr. GHIAS UL HAQ.

Submitted by: Noorulhadi Qureshi (PhD Scholar)

SARHAD UNIVERSITY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, PESHAWAR.

11/3/2016 SlideNo. 1
A rather basic definition of validity
is
“the degree to which a test
measures what is it supposed to
measure.”
Although this definition is
relatively common and
straightforward, it oversimplifies
the issue a bit.
Someone might tell
you that a hammer is
a useful tool, but the
usefulness of a
hammer actually
depends on the job to
A better definition, reflecting the
most contemporary perspective,
is that validity is “the degree to
which evidence and theory
support the interpretations of
test scores entailed by the
proposed uses” of a test (AERA,
APA, & NCME, 1999, p. 9).
“The American Education Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA), and
the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) published a revision of the Standards for
Educational and Psychological Testing”
This more sophisticated definition has a
number of important implications.
 First, a measure itself is neither
valid nor invalid; rather, the
issue of validity concerns the
interpretations and uses of a
measure’s scores. Narrow to
down. Top to down.
(AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999), (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992).
A second important implication
of the definition of validity is that
validity is a matter of degree, it
is not an “all-or-none” issue.
That is, the validity of a test
interpretation should be
conceived in terms of strong
versus weak instead of simply
valid or invalid. There is no
magical threshold beyond which
A third important factor of
validity is that the validity
of a test’s interpretation is
based on evidence and
theory
AERA, APA, & NCME, 1999), (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992).
 Although such choices are based
on a number of practical,
theoretical, and psychometric
factors, a test should be selected
only if there is strong enough
evidence supporting the
intended interpretation and use.
 Validity is the extent to which
a concept conclusion or
measurement is well-founded
and corresponds accurately
to the real world.

 Kendell, R; Jablensky, A (2003). "Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric
diagnoses". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 160 (1): pp 4–12.
Validity
measure
relevant test,
proper
measurement,
theoretical
interpretation.
 Validity is important because it can
help determine what types of tests
to use, and help to make sure
researchers are using methods
Validity

Experimental
Test Validity
Validity
 Test validity

1.1Validity 1.2Construct 1.3Content 1.4Criterion

(accuracy) validity validity validity

1.3.1Face 1.4.1Concurrent 1.4.2Predictive

validity validity validity
 Experimental
validity

2.1Statistical
2.2Internal 2.3External
conclusion
validity validity
validity

2.3.1Ecological 2.3.2Relationship
validity to internal validity
 validity is really about test
interpretation and use (not about the
test itself), test users often refer to
the “validity of a test.”
Test validity

1.1Validity 1.2Construct 1.3Content 1.4Criterion

(accuracy) validity validity validity

1.3.1Face 1.4.1Concurrent 1.4.2Predictive

validity validity validity
1.1Validity (accuracy)
Validity of an assessment is the degree to
which it measures what it is supposed to
measure. This is not the same
as reliability, which is the extent to which
a measurement gives result 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 (and vice versa).
Validity is also dependent on the
measurement measuring what it was
designed to measure, and not something
else instead. Validity (similar to reliability)
 Construct validity evidence involves the
empirical and theoretical support for the
interpretation of the construct. 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
 Face validity could easily be
called surface validity or appearance
validity since it is merely a
subjective, superficial assessment of
whether the measurement
procedure you use in a study
appears to be a valid measure of a
given variable .
 Content validity, sometimes called
logical or rational validity, is the
estimate of how much a measure
represents every single element of a
 Criterion validity evidence involves
the correlation between the test and
a criterion variable (or variables)
taken as representative of the
construct. 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 criterion),
and IQ tests are often validated
 Predictive Validity: if the test accurately
predicts what it is supposed to predict. For
example, the SAT exhibits predictive
validity for performance in college. It can
also refer to when scores from the
predictor measure are taken first and then
the criterion data is collected later.
 Concurrent Validity: when the predictor
and criterion data are collected at the
same time. It can also refer to when a
test replaces another test (i.e. because it’s
cheaper). For example, a written driver’s
 The validity of the design of
experimental research studies is a
fundamental part of the scientific
method, and a concern of research
ethics. Without a valid design, valid
Experimental

scientific conclusions cannot be

validity

drawn.
2.1Statistical
2.2Internal validity 2.3External validity
conclusion validity

2.3.1Ecological 2.3.2Relationship
validity to internal validity
Statistical conclusion validity involves
ensuring the use of adequate sampling
procedures, appropriate statistical tests,
and reliable measurement procedures.
 Internal validity is an inductive estimate of
the degree to which conclusions
about causal relationships can be made
(e.g. cause and effect), based on the
measures used, the research setting, and
the whole research design. Good
experimental techniques, in which the
effect of an independent variable on
a dependent variable is studied under
highly controlled conditions, usually allow
for higher degrees of internal validity
 External validity concerns the extent to
which the (internally valid) results of a
study can be held to be true for other
cases, for example to different people,
places or times. In other words, it is about
whether findings can be validly
generalized. If the same research study
was conducted in those other cases,
would it get the same results.
 Ecological validity is the extent to which
research results can be applied to real-life
situations outside of research settings.
This issue is closely related to external
validity but covers the question of to what
degree experimental findings mirror what
can be observed in the real world (ecology
= the science of interaction between
organism and its environment). To be
ecologically valid, the methods, materials
and setting of a study must approximate
the real-life situation that is under
 On first glance, internal and external validity seem
to contradict each other – to get an experimental
design you have to control for all interfering
variables. That is why you often conduct your
experiment in a laboratory setting. While gaining
internal validity (excluding interfering variables by
keeping them constant) you lose ecological or
external validity because you establish an artificial
laboratory setting. On the other hand, with
observational research you can not control for
interfering variables (low internal validity) but you
can measure in the natural (ecological) environment,
at the place where behavior normally occurs.
However, in doing so, you sacrifice internal validity.
 The apparent contradiction of internal validity and
external validity is, however, only superficial. The
Dr.
 American Educational Research Association, Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education.
(1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
 Anne Lewellyn Barstow (Witchcraze) adjusted Levack's estimate to account for lost records, estimating 100,000 deaths.
Ronald Hutton (Triumph of the Moon) argues that Levack's estimate had already been adjusted for these, and revises the
figure to approximately 40,000.
 Brains, Willnat, Manheim, Rich 2011. Empirical Political Analysis 8th edition. Boston, MA: Longman p. 105
 Brian Levack (The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe) multiplied the number of known European witch trials by the average
rate of conviction and execution, to arrive at a figure of around 60,000 deaths.
 Cozby, Paul C.. Methods in behavioral research. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009.
 Cronbach, Lee J.; Meehl, Paul E. (1955). "Construct validity in psychological tests.". Psychological Bulletin. 52 (4): 281–302.
 Foxcroft, C., Paterson, H., le Roux, N., & Herbst, D. Human Sciences Research Council, (2004). 'Psychological assessment in
South Africa: A needs analysis: The test use patterns and needs of psychological assessment practitioners: Final Report:
July. Retrieved from
website:http://www.hsrc.ac.za/research/output/outputDocuments/1716_Foxcroft_Psychologicalassessmentin%20SA.pdf
 Kendell, R; Jablensky, A (2003). "Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses". The American
Journal of Psychiatry. 160 (1):
 Kendler, KS (2006). "Reflections on the relationship between psychiatric genetics and psychiatric nosology". The American
Journal of Psychiatry. 163 (7):
 Kramer, Geoffrey P., Douglas A. Bernstein, and Vicky Phares. Introduction to clinical psychology. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.
 National Council on Measurement in Education. http://www.ncme.org/ncme/NCME/Resource_Center/
 Perri, FS; Lichtenwald, TG (2010). "The Precarious Use Of Forensic Psychology As Evidence: The Timothy Masters
Case" (PDF). Champion Magazine (July): 34–45.
 Robins and Guze proposed in 1970 what were to become influential formal criteria for establishing the validity of
psychiatric diagnoses.