Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Lawshe Content Validity Ratio/Evidence
Method evidence record

Lawshe Content Validity Ratio

The Lawshe content validity ratio (CVR) is a simple, quantitative method for judging whether the items of a test or measure actually represent the content they are meant to cover, based on the agreement of a panel of subject-matter experts. Charles Lawshe introduced it in 1975 to address a gap in personnel testing: content validity had long been treated as a matter of judgment with no number attached, leaving practitioners unable to defend item retention decisions objectively. Lawshe's insight was to ask experts a focused question, is this item essential, useful but not essential, or not necessary, and to convert the proportion who call an item essential into a ratio that ranges from minus one to plus one. Items whose CVR exceeds a critical value tied to panel size are retained, and the average CVR of retained items gives a content validity index for the whole instrument. The method's clarity made it a durable standard in test development. It is especially common in human resources, nursing, and health-measure validation.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Lawshe Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / organizational-behavior
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. · DOI 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyBehaviorally Anchored Rating Scalesmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyCritical Incident Techniquemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familySituational Judgment Testmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

1 recorded citation, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account