Validity: Nature and Use in Research Questionnaire Analysis

This assignment provides a comprehensive overview of the concept of validity in research questionnaires. It begins by defining validity as the extent to which a questionnaire measures what it intends to measure, differentiating between internal and external validity. The paper then explores various types of validity, including face validity, content validity, criterion validity (concurrent and predictive), and construct validity. Face validity is presented as a preliminary assessment based on common-sense judgment, while content validity relies on expert consensus to ensure comprehensive coverage of the concept. Criterion validity is discussed in terms of comparing new indicators with established ones, with concurrent validity examining correlations and predictive validity assessing the ability to forecast future outcomes. Construct validity, similar to content validity, emphasizes the use of multiple indicators to accurately measure a concept. The assignment concludes by emphasizing the importance of validity in quantitative research and acknowledging its relevance, even though some qualitative researchers question its applicability.

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.

3NATURE AND USE OF “VALIDITY” IN A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
2018). The thing that is being done is the checking of the performance of the operationalization
against a criterion. The criteria that are used as a standard of the judgment accounts for the
different approaches the following approaches are used:
 Concurrent validity: This is the widely used and accepted indicator which is available, and
the results of the new indicator can be compared with the indicator which is existing and
followed by this the concurrent validity can be established (Bell, Bryman and Harley 2018).
By assuming the fact that both of the indicators are associated with measuring the same
phenomenon the concurrent validity is associated with allowing mean by which it is possible
to determine whether or not the new indicator is measuring what it is believed to measure.
 Predictive Validity: In case if an indicator is capable of showing the reliability of predicting
the future outcome then it can be said to have predictive validity(Dikko 2016). This is the
type of validity which is restricted to the situations where the indicator, as well as the
outcome, are seen to be distinct from each other while the same concept is being measured.
Construct validity: This is similar of content validity in some ways, the construct validity is
sometimes seen to be depending upon the idea that there are many concepts which are having
numerous ways by which this concept can be measured. It is possible for the researcher to
choose and utilize several of these indicators which would then be combined to form a construct
or an index after the questionnaire has been administered. Whereas in case of content validity the
construct validity is associated with encouraging the use of multiple indicators to increase the
accuracy with which the measuring of the concept is done (Rahimian and Abedini 2017). The
construct is associated with representing the collection of behaviors which are generally
associated in a meaningful way of creating an image or an idea which is invented for conducting
a research process. Construct validity is generally considered to be a degree to which the
interfaces is possible to be created from the operationalization’s present in the study to the
constructs upon which the operationalizations are dependent. To construct the validity, it is
essential to make sure that evidence is provided previously to make sure that the data is capable
of supporting the theoretical structure (Leung, L., 2015). Besides this, it is very much essential to
show that the operationalization of the construct is being controlled or in other words, it is better
to say that the theory has something in correspondence with the reality.
Conclusion:

4NATURE AND USE OF “VALIDITY” IN A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
The conclusion which can be drawn from the analyzing survey data is acceptable up to a
certain degree to which they are determined to be valid. Validity is generally used to determine if
the research measure which has already been intended for measuring and for having an
approximate overview of the truthfulness of the results. Researchers are often associated with the
usage of their definitions whenever to what is being considered to be valid. In the process of
quantitative research testing for validity is always given. However, some of the qualitative
researchers have gone so far to suggest that the validity is not applicable for their research even
when they are associated with acknowledging the need for some of the qualifying checks or for
measuring in their works.

5NATURE AND USE OF “VALIDITY” IN A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
References:
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Irvine, C.K.S. and Walker, D., 2018. Introduction to research in
education. Cengage Learning.
Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B., 2018. Business research methods. Oxford university press.
Cook, D.A. and Reed, D.A., 2015. Appraising the quality of medical education research
methods: the medical education research study quality instrument and the Newcastle–Ottawa
scale-education. Academic Medicine, 90(8), pp.1067-1076.
Dikko, M., 2016. Establishing construct validity and reliability: Pilot testing of a qualitative
interview for research in Takaful (Islamic insurance). The Qualitative Report, 21(3), pp.521-528.
Evans, S.C., Roberts, M.C., Keeley, J.W., Blossom, J.B., Amaro, C.M., Garcia, A.M., Stough,
C.O., Canter, K.S., Robles, R. and Reed, G.M., 2015. Vignette methodologies for studying
clinicians’ decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field
studies. International journal of clinical and health psychology, 15(2), pp.160-170.
Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R. and Mills, J., 2017. Case study research: Foundations and
methodological orientations. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung (Vol. 18, pp. 1-17).
FreieUniversitaet Berlin.
Ledford, J.R., Hall, E., Conder, E. and Lane, J.D., 2016. Research for young children with
autism spectrum disorders: Evidence of social and ecological validity. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 35(4), pp.223-233.
Leung, L., 2015. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of
family medicine and primary care, 4(3), p.324.
Norris, J.M., Plonsky, L., Ross, S.J. and Schoonen, R., 2015. Guidelines for reporting
quantitative methods and results in primary research. Language Learning, 65(2), pp.470-476.
Patten, M.L. and Newhart, M., 2017. Understanding research methods: An overview of the
essentials. Routledge.
Rahimian, M. and Abedini, M., 2017. Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility and In-Role
and Extra-Role Performance: Mediating Role of Work Attitude. Management Research in
Iran, 21(2), pp.137-155.

6NATURE AND USE OF “VALIDITY” IN A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
Siegmund, J., Siegmund, N. and Apel, S., 2015, May. Views on internal and external validity in
empirical software engineering. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on
Software Engineering-Volume 1 (pp. 9-19). IEEE Press.
Volk, A.A., Veenstra, R. and Espelage, D.L., 2017. So you want to study bullying?
Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying
research. Aggression and violent behavior, 36, pp.34-43.