विधियों की तुलना करें
चुनी हुई विधियों की आमने-सामने समीक्षा करें; भिन्नता वाली पंक्तियाँ रेखांकित हैं।
| सामग्री वैधता× | नोमोलॉजिकल वैधता× | |
|---|---|---|
| क्षेत्र | मनोमिति | मनोमिति |
| परिवार | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| उद्भव वर्ष≠ | 1975 | 1955 |
| प्रवर्तक≠ | C. H. Lawshe (quantitative framework); earlier qualitative traditions in educational measurement | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| प्रकार≠ | Validity evidence / expert judgement procedure | Validity evidence framework |
| मौलिक स्रोत≠ | 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 ↗ |
| उपनाम≠ | content-related validity, logical validity, face validity, content validation | nomological network validity, construct network validity, nomological web validity |
| संबंधित | 6 | 6 |
| सारांश≠ | 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. |
| ScholarGateडेटासेट ↗ |
|
|