השוואת שיטות
סקרו את השיטות שבחרתם זו לצד זו; שורות שבהן יש הבדל מודגשות.
| תוקף מבנה× | תוקף תוכן× | |
|---|---|---|
| תחום | פסיכומטריה | פסיכומטריה |
| משפחה | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| שנת המקור≠ | 1955 | 1975 |
| הוגה השיטה≠ | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl | C. H. Lawshe (quantitative framework); earlier qualitative traditions in educational measurement |
| סוג≠ | Validity evaluation framework | Validity evidence / expert judgement procedure |
| מקור מכונן≠ | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ | Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. link ↗ |
| כינויים | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation | content-related validity, logical validity, face validity, content validation |
| קשורות | 6 | 6 |
| תקציר≠ | Construct validity is the degree to which a test or scale actually measures the theoretical construct it is intended to measure. Introduced by Cronbach and Meehl in 1955, it is the central validity concern in psychological and educational measurement, evaluated by accumulating multiple lines of empirical and logical evidence rather than by any single statistical test. | 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. |
| ScholarGateמערך נתונים ↗ |
|
|