Bandingkan metode
Tinjau metode pilihan Anda berdampingan; baris yang berbeda akan disorot.
| Validitas Isi× | Validitas Konstruk× | |
|---|---|---|
| Bidang | Psikometri | Psikometri |
| Keluarga | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Tahun asal≠ | 1975 | 1955 |
| Pencetus≠ | C. H. Lawshe (quantitative framework); earlier qualitative traditions in educational measurement | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Tipe≠ | Validity evidence / expert judgement procedure | Validity evaluation framework |
| Sumber perintis≠ | 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 ↗ |
| Alias | content-related validity, logical validity, face validity, content validation | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| Terkait | 6 | 6 |
| Ringkasan≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateSet data ↗ |
|
|