Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Satura validitāte× | Nomoloģiskā validitāte× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare | Psihometrija | Psihometrija |
| Saime | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 1975 | 1955 |
| Autors≠ | C. H. Lawshe (quantitative framework); earlier qualitative traditions in educational measurement | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Tips≠ | Validity evidence / expert judgement procedure | Validity evidence framework |
| Pirmavots≠ | 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 ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi≠ | content-related validity, logical validity, face validity, content validation | nomological network validity, construct network validity, nomological web validity |
| Saistītās | 6 | 6 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|