Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Lawshe Content Validity Ratio/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

Lawshe Content Validity Ratio

The Lawshe content validity ratio (CVR) is a simple, quantitative method for judging whether the items of a test or measure actually represent the content they are meant to cover, based on the agreement of a panel of subject-matter experts. Charles Lawshe introduced it in 1975 to address a gap in personnel testing: content validity had long been treated as a matter of judgment with no number attached, leaving practitioners unable to defend item retention decisions objectively. Lawshe's insight was to ask experts a focused question, is this item essential, useful but not essential, or not necessary, and to convert the proportion who call an item essential into a ratio that ranges from minus one to plus one. Items whose CVR exceeds a critical value tied to panel size are retained, and the average CVR of retained items gives a content validity index for the whole instrument. The method's clarity made it a durable standard in test development. It is especially common in human resources, nursing, and health-measure validation.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Lawshe Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index
Taksonomisk metoderegister · process-pipeline / organizational-behavior
  • Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. · DOI 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

Same method familyBehaviorally Anchored Rating Scalesmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyCritical Incident Techniquemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familySituational Judgment Testmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

1 registrert sitering, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto