ScholarGate
アシスタント

手法を比較

選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。

内容妥当性×構成概念妥当性(Nomological Validity)×
分野心理測定学心理測定学
系統Latent structureLatent structure
提唱年19751955
提唱者C. H. Lawshe (quantitative framework); earlier qualitative traditions in educational measurementLee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl
種類Validity evidence / expert judgement procedureValidity evidence framework
原典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 ↗
別名content-related validity, logical validity, face validity, content validationnomological network validity, construct network validity, nomological web validity
関連66
概要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.
ScholarGateデータセット
  1. v1
  2. 2 出典
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 出典
  3. PUBLISHED

検索へ スライドをダウンロード

ScholarGate手法を比較: Content Validity · Nomological Validity. 2026-06-15に以下より取得 https://scholargate.app/ja/compare