Title: Types of Validity
1Types of Validity
Construct Validity
Criterion Validity
Content Validity
Predictive Validity
Concurrent Validity
Convergent Validity
Discriminant Validity
Adapted from Sekaran, 2004
2Types of Validity
- Construct Validity
- Extent to which hypotheses about construct are
supported by data - Define construct, generate hypotheses about
constructs relation to other constructs - Develop comprehensive measure of construct
assess its reliability - Examine relationship of measure of construct to
other, similar and dissimilar constructs - E.g. Height Weight Networking career
outcomes study Learning Style Orientation measure
3Establishing Construct Validity
- Multi-trait multi-method matrix
- Convergent validity coefficient
- Absolute size of correlation between different
measures of the same construct should be large
significantly different from zero - Discriminant validity coefficient
- Correlations between the same construct measured
by different methods should be significantly
different from correlations of - Different constructs measured by different
methods (across methods across constructs) - Different constructs measured by same method
(method bias)
4Convergent Discriminant ValidityCorr b/w
Objective (O) Self-Reports (SR) of Height
Weight
5Convergent Discriminant Validityof Objective
Self-Reports of Height Weight
- Convergent validity (across methods)
- Objective and subjective measures of height are
correlated .98 - Objective and subjective measures of weight are
correlated .92
6Discriminant Validityof Objective Self-Reports
of Height Weight
- Discriminant validity (across constructs)
- Objective measures of height weight are corr
.55 - Subjective measures of height weight are
corr.69 - STRONG CASE Are the correlations b/w the same
construct measured by different methods
significantly different from corr b/w different
constructs measured by same methods - i.e., Are .92 .98 significantly different from
.55 .69? - Convert rs to z scores and compare
7Discriminant Validityof Objective Self-Reports
of Height Weight
- Discriminant validity (across constructs)
- Objective height subjective weight are corr
.68 - Subjective height objective weight are corr .56
- WEAK CASE Are the correlations b/w the same
construct measured by different methods
significantly different from corr b/w different
constructs measured by different methods - i.e., Are .92 .98 significantly different from
.56 .68
8Establishing Construct Validity in Networking
Study
- For convergent validity, different measures of
the same construct should be highly correlated - Note In networking study, diff measures diff
subscales - Corr b/w diff measures of career success
(promotion, salary, perceived career success)
range from .20 to .36 (moderate support) - .20 .36 should not be sig diff from each other
- Corr b/w diff measures of networking (increasing
internal visibility, socializing etc.) range from
.03 to .43 (weak support) - .03 .43 should not be sig diff from each other
9Establishing Construct Validity in Networking
Study
- For discriminant validity, different measures of
the same construct should be more highly
correlated than different measures of different
constructs - Correlations b/w career success networking (.01
to .35) should be sig different from - Corr b/w diff measures of career success (.20 to
.36) - Corr b/w diff measures of networking (.03 to .43)
10Learning Style Study
- Developed items by generating critical incidents
(Study 1) - N67
- Yes/no responses to statements
- Recall of learning events
- Two types of learning theoretical, practical (2)
- Two types of outcomessuccess, failure (2)
- 2 x 2 events per participant
- 112 items constructed in total
11Learning Style Study
- Study 1 Part 2
- Created 112 items from critical incidents
- Administered to 154 participants
- 5-point likert scale (agree/disagree)
- Extracted 5 factor solution w/factor analyses
- 54 items loaded highly on the 5 factors
- Content validity item sorting by 8 grad students
- Also administered personality scale
12Learning Style Study
- Item Development Study (study 1)
- Convergent Validity
- High reliabilities of subscales of Learning Style
(.81-.91) - Corr b/w different measures (subscales) of
learning style .01 to.32 but 1 only corr is
significant - Weak support for convergent validity of new
learning style measure - Discriminant validity
- Corr b/w different measures of different
constructs (Learning Style personality) .42 to
.01 should be lower than and sig diff from corr
b/w different measures of same construct
(subscales of learning style) .01 to .32
13Learning Style Orientation Measure
- Validation Study (study 2)
- N350 -193
- New learning style, Personality, old Learning
style, preferences for instructional assessment
methods - Construct validity
- Confirmatory factor analysis confirms 5
dimensions - Reliability of new learning style subscales.74
to .87 compared to - Reliability of old learning style subscales.83
to .86 - Reliability of personality subscales.86 to .95
14Learning Style Orientation Measure
- Validation Study (study 2)
- Convergent validity
- Corr b/w similar measures of key construct Corr
b/w diff subscales of new learning style 01 to
.23 should be comparable to - Corr b/w similar measures of other constructs in
the study - Diff subscales of old learning style .23 to .40
- Diff subscales of personality .01 to .27
15Learning Style Orientation Measure
- Validation Study (study 2)
- Discriminant validity
- Corr b/w measures of similar constructs Corr b/w
new learning style subscales old learning style
.01 to .31 - Corr b/w measures of different constructs
- Corr b/w new learning style personality
subscales is .01 to .55 - Corr b/w old learning style personality
subscales .02 to .38
16Learning Style Orientation Measure
- Validation Study
- Incremental validity (aka construct validity)
- Additional variance explained by old vs. new
learning style measures in preferences for
assessment instruction
17Types of Validity
Construct Validity
Criterion Validity
Content Validity
Predictive Validity
Concurrent Validity
Convergent Validity
Discriminant Validity
Adapted from Sekaran, 2004