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

• Validity

[edit] References