Representation validity
From Psychology Wiki
Community portal · Tasks to do · News · Help
Clinical · Educational · Ind&Org · Other fields · Professional · Transpersonal · World
Assessment |
Biopsychology |
Comparative |
Cognitive |
Developmental |
Language
Personality |
Philosophy |
Research Methods |
Social |
Statistics
Statistics: Scientific method · Research methods · Experimental design · Undergraduate statistics courses · Statistical tests · Game theory · Decision theory
Representation validity is concerned about how well the constructs or abstractions translate into observable measures. There are two primary questions to be answered.
- Do the subconstructs properly define the construct (if you break up the main abstractions into
smaller abstractions or definitions)?
- Do the observations properly interpret, measure, or test the constructs?
One way to argue positively, albeit a very weak argument, is to claim face validity for the construct/observable relationship. Basically this is making the following claim: on the face of it, it seems like a good translation. The weakness of this argument can be strengthened by a consensus of experts. Another way to argue positively is to claim content validity for the construct/observable relationship. To do this one must check the operationalization against the relevant content domain for the construct: to extent to which the tests (ie, the observable measures) measure the content of the subject being tested — ie, that all the important content areas are covered adequately.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
 This psychology-related article is a stub. You can help the Psychology Wiki by expanding it. |
