Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Validitatea de conținut longitudinală× | Validitatea de construct× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Psihometrie | Psihometrie |
| Familie | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1995–2000 | 1955 |
| Autorul original≠ | Haynes, Richard & Kubany (1995); extended to longitudinal contexts by measurement invariance researchers | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Tip≠ | Validity evaluation technique | Validity evaluation framework |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. DOI ↗ | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | longitudinal content validation, temporal content validity, repeated-measure content validity, content validity over time | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| Înrudite | 6 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | Longitudinal content validity evaluates whether the items of a measure adequately and consistently represent the intended content domain not only at a single point in time but across repeated administrations. It ensures that the conceptual coverage of a scale remains appropriate and stable as measurement occasions accumulate over a study period. | 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 de date ↗ |
|
|