Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Validité de contenu multiniveau× | Validité de contenu× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Psychométrie | Psychométrie |
| Famille | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Année d'origine≠ | 1975–2000s | 1975 |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Rooted in Lawshe (1975) for content validity; multilevel extension developed through multilevel psychometric literature from the 1990s onward | C. H. Lawshe (quantitative framework); earlier qualitative traditions in educational measurement |
| Type≠ | Validity evaluation / expert judgment | Validity evidence / expert judgement procedure |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. DOI ↗ | Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. link ↗ |
| Alias | hierarchical content validity, nested-data content validity, multilevel scale content evaluation, MCV | content-related validity, logical validity, face validity, content validation |
| Apparentées | 6 | 6 |
| Résumé≠ | Multilevel content validity extends the classical content validity framework to settings where items, raters, or respondents are nested within hierarchical structures — such as students within schools, patients within clinics, or items rated by panels from distinct cultural or professional groups. It ensures that scale content is relevant and representative at every level of the hierarchy, not just in the aggregate. | 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. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|