Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Validitate de conținut multinivel× | Validitatea de construct× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Psihometrie | Psihometrie |
| Familie | Latent structure | Latent structure |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1975–2000s | 1955 |
| Autorul original≠ | Rooted in Lawshe (1975) for content validity; multilevel extension developed through multilevel psychometric literature from the 1990s onward | Lee J. Cronbach & Paul E. Meehl |
| Tip≠ | Validity evaluation / expert judgment | Validity evaluation framework |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. DOI ↗ | Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. DOI ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | hierarchical content validity, nested-data content validity, multilevel scale content evaluation, MCV | construct validation, factorial validity, nomological validity evidence, validity of interpretation |
| Înrudite | 6 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | Multilevel content validity extends the classical content validity framework to settings where items, raters, or respondents are nested within hierarchical structures — such as students within schools, patients within clinics, or items rated by panels from distinct cultural or professional groups. It ensures that scale content is relevant and representative at every level of the hierarchy, not just in the aggregate. | 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 ↗ |
|
|