Nature and Use of “Validity” in a Research Questionnaire

Running head: NATURE AND USE OF “VALIDITY” IN A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
TASK 3: Nature and use of “validity” in a research questionnaire
[Name of the Student]
[Name of the University]
[Author note]

1NATURE AND USE OF “VALIDITY” IN A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction:
The concept of validity is generally associated with the dealing with the extent up to
which the questionnaires are associated with measuring what it purports to measure, and this is
often rephrased as the truthfulness or the accuracy (Cook and Reed 2015). This concept is
analogous to the usage of the wrong instruments to measure a specific concept like the usage of a
ruler instead of a scale to measure the weight. The validity of s study is generally considered to
be dependent upon the degree of systematic error, and it is generally categorized into two
components. There exist mainly two types of validity, and this includes internal validity and
external validity. The internal validity is generally seen to be dependent upon the amount of error
in the measurements which includes the exposure of the diseases and the associations existing
between the variables (Patten and Newhart 2017). A good internal validity generally refers to the
lack of errors in the measurement and is associated with suggesting the fact that it might be
possible to draw the interferences. The external validity is generally associated with discussing
the process of generalizing the findings of the study to the population from where the sample is
drawn. This generally requires an understanding regarding the conditions which are relevant to
the process of generalization.
Types of validity in Research Questions:
The accuracy of a question is determined by a specific process which includes the
examining of the validity of the phrasing along with examining the validity of the responses
which the questions collect. The examining of the validity of the question phrasing includes the
degree to which the questions are true and is associated with an accurate reflection of the
intended focus (Volk, Veenstra and Espelage 2017). The examining of the validity of the
responses collected by the questions mainly includes the degree to which the questions are
associated with a collection of the true thoughts of the respondents in an accurate way.
Face validity: This is the process associated with the collection of the actionable information
which is often associated with involving the process of asking a commonplace question. The
questions might be those who are querying the respondents regarding their ages, marital status or
the gender (Norris et al. 2015). For this kind of instances, one of the means which is associated
with lending to the validity of a question is by relying upon the collective judgment provided by
other researchers. In case, when the consensus in the field is that a specific phrasing or indicator
is achieving the results that have been desired, then the question can be said to have face validity.

2NATURE AND USE OF “VALIDITY” IN A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
This generally considered to be the least scientific method of validity and the major reason
behind this is that this is not quantified by making use of the statistical methods. This is not
validity in terms of the technical sense (Siegmund, Siegmund and Apel 2015). In a research, it is
never sufficient to rely upon the face judgment alone entirely, and for this reason, more
quantifiable methods of validity are necessary to draw a conclusion which is acceptable (Evans
et al. 2015). There are many instruments of measurements to consider the fact that face validity
is useful in cases where there is a need for distinguishing one of the approaches over the other.
So it can be stated that the face validity should never be trusted by considering its own merits.
Content validity: This is almost related to face validity, and this type of validity is also
dependent upon the consensus of the others existing in the field. This is generally seen to be
different from the face validity in terms of dependency that it is it relies upon an exhaustive
investigation of the entire concept to make sure of the validity. This is considered to be a
subjective form of measurement, and the major reason behind this is that it is still based upon the
perception of the peoples to measure the constructs which would otherwise be difficult to
measure (Ledford et al. 2016). This is where it is associated with distinguishing itself and this is
done through its use of the experts in the field or individuals belongings to a target population. It
is possible to make this study much more objective by making use of a rigorous statistical test.
This is considered to be a subjective form of the measurement, and that would otherwise be
difficult to measure.
Criterion validity: This type of validity is generally dependent upon the capability of comparing
the performance of the new indicators with the indicator which is already existing or is widely
accepted. Whereas in case of the face validity it is generally associated with encouraging the
adaptation of the existing indicator and the criterion validity generally makes use of the existing
indicators to determine the validity of the indicator which has been newly developed (Harrison et
al. 2017). The criterion validity is possible to be categorized into two subtypes which includes
the concurrent validity and the predictive validity. This can alternatively be referred to the
instrumental validity. Generally, the accuracy of the measure is generally demonstrated using
comparing this with the measure which has already been demonstrated to be valid. It can be
stated that this is done in correlation with the other measures which are having their validity. In
order to do this, it is essential to be made sure that all the criterions are being measured in a
proper way along with being aware of the fact that appropriate criteria do always exist (Ary et al.