Wednesday 29 May 2013

Validity - What you need to know

What is Validity?
Validity refers to the extent to which a measure is measuring what it intends to, or in other words, it refers to extent to which it reflects the reality that it claims to represent. The first definition is more relevant to internal validity, whilst the latter helps to explain external validity.

How many types of validity are there? 
In short, loads. But out of ones that you should know at A-level, there's two categories, and a couple of types under each heading.

Internal validity: the extent to which a measure or test is measuring what it intends to. There are typically thought to be three main types:

1. Face validity - validity at face value, the simplest form. It's basically what gets affected by confounding and extraneous variables and lack of control over these factors. 

2. Construct validity - is the IV or DV appropriate for the concept being investigated? For concepts such as stress, this is a major issue. How do you define stress? And how can it be properly measured if there's no standard definition? One study which is relevant from the clinical psychology bit is Lewinson's study on positive reinforcements and depression - can you really measure depression levels on a depression adjective checklist? 

3. Concurrent (criterion) validity - do other relevant measures get the same result as yours? For example, if you're intending to measure intelligence through a new method, do the IQ scores or school performances of your participants correlate with the results you're getting?

External validity: the extent to which a measure or findings reflect the reality that it claims to represent. Again, there are 3 main types:

1. Ecological validity - refers to how realistic the task and environment is. If your task is similar to the real life behaviour it's attempting to measure, it's going to have high ecological validity.

2. Population validity - refers to how relevant the population is. If you're attempting to generalise your findings to all eyewitnesses, for example, you should ideally have a wide variety of real-life witnesses, who vary in age, gender, occupation, intelligence, ethnicity, etc.

3. Temporal validity - refers to how relevant the time period is in affecting the findings. e.g. A study on attitudes conducted decades ago cannot be expected to have temporal validity due to how quickly attitudes shift in society. 


All of these essentially link back to generalisability, usefulness and applicability to real life situations, so it's a really useful issue to get your head around, and worth mentioning if you can.

7 comments:

  1. Isn't concurrent validity basically the same as reliability? Could you explain the difference to me? :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're very similar, but there's a key difference.
      Concurrent validity is whether your measure returns similar results to OTHER valid measures of the same thing.
      Reliability is whether YOUR measure gives the similar result time and time again.
      Hope this helps!

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is the explanation/example of temporal validity really correct?

    >e.g. A study on attitudes conducted decades ago
    >cannot be expected to have temporal validity due
    >to how quickly attitudes shift in society.

    Shouldn't such a study HAVE a temporal validity and cannot be expected to be indefinitely valid?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ideally, studies should have temporal validity - consistent validity across time. However, because of the nature of change in areas such as forensics, health, social attitudes, etc., it's unlikely for that to be the case.

      Delete
  4. There has to be an initial triage procedure where the selection panel views the applications looking for reasons not to shortlist. Private psychologist

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eliminate Hsv-1&2 (Herpes) ............................. with herbal means…

    This herbal Doctor is the best online,

    (R.buckler11 @ ) gmail com,

    ReplyDelete