পদ্ধতির তুলনা করুন
নির্বাচিত পদ্ধতিগুলো পাশাপাশি পর্যালোচনা করুন; যে সারিগুলোয় পার্থক্য আছে সেগুলো চিহ্নিত করা হয়।
| বিষয়বস্তু বৈধতা× | নমোলজিক্যাল ভ্যালিডিটি× | |
|---|---|---|
| ক্ষেত্র | মনোমিতি | মনোমিতি |
| পরিবার | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| উদ্ভবের বছর≠ | 1975 | 1955 |
| প্রবর্তক≠ | C. H. Lawshe (quantitative framework); earlier qualitative traditions in educational measurement | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| ধরন≠ | Validity evidence / expert judgement procedure | Validity evidence framework |
| মৌলিক উৎস≠ | Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. link ↗ | Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ |
| অপর নাম≠ | content-related validity, logical validity, face validity, content validation | nomological network validity, construct network validity, nomological web validity |
| সম্পর্কিত | 6 | 6 |
| সারসংক্ষেপ≠ | Content validity is evidence that a measurement instrument adequately samples the full domain of the construct it is intended to measure. It is established through systematic expert review and quantified with indices such as Lawshe's Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Lynn's Content Validity Index (CVI), making it the foundational validity step in scale development. | Nomological validity evaluates whether a construct behaves as theory predicts within a broader network of related constructs. It is not a single statistical test but an accumulation of evidence that the measure fits coherently into a web of theoretically grounded relationships — demonstrating that what is measured is what the theory says it should measure. |
| ScholarGateডেটাসেট ↗ |
|
|