Face Validity in Research: Definition, Importance, and Examples

This assignment explores the concept of face validity in research, defining it as the extent to which a research instrument appears to measure what it intends to measure. The paper contrasts face validity with content validity, highlighting its superficial nature and limitations. It discusses how survey questions designed to assess customer attitudes towards a store might exhibit face validity, but might lack true validity if respondents are not actually customers. The assignment emphasizes that face validity is the weakest form of validity and suggests the use of content or construct validity for more reliable results. The author provides examples of how researchers could improve validity by obtaining feedback from customers. The paper references several sources to support its arguments and analysis of face validity in research.

Running head: FACE VALIDITY IN RESEARCH 1
Face Validity in Research
Name
Institution

FACE VALIDITY IN RESEARCH 2
Face Validity in Research
QA
Face validity is described by De Boeck and Elosua (2016) as the extent to which a piece
of research or a measurement or is relevant that is it essentially cover the variable or concept that
is trying to examine. In our case, the survey questions that were designed by the researcher to
collect the attitude of the respondents towards the store of study accurately showed actually
fulfilled the purpose of the research.
QB
The survey actually meant the purpose it was designed to achieve. This is because, they were
likely to provoke the feelings of the target respondents and that it appeared to measure what
was intended to measure i.e. the attitude of the respondents. Definitely, all the research
participant would eventually think that they are completing a questionnaire to identify the rating
of the store which they but their clothes, and thus the designed research question would have a
strong face validity.
QC
In several ways, face validity provides a contrast to content validity that endeavors to measure
how precisely an experiment embodies what it is trying to measure. According to Carter (2010),
face validity is only regarded to be a shallow measure of validity, unlike content validity and
construct validity as is not actually about what the measurement procedure truly measures, but
what it looks to measure. In our study, the appearance of the survey data collection tool was only

FACE VALIDITY IN RESEARCH 3
superficial. For instance, the questions were designed in a way that it was presumed that the
respondents would rate the services of the store based on their perceptions. Nonetheless, the
respondents could not even be customers of the store and it is possible that they may not have
even shopped in the store. In that case, the tool cannot measure the specified need despite the
face validity of the questionnaire appearing like it would measure what it was intended to
measure (Chen-Gaffey & Getsay, 2018). In such a case, the face validity of the tool will be
classed as 'weak evidence’ and thus caution would be necessary to avoid supporting validity, but
that is incorrect (Salkind, 2012).
QD
Despite the fact that face validity is typically the easiest form of validity to apply in our survey it
is arguably the weakest form of validity in this case and thus not a reliable measure of validity of
the research instrument. In other words, it is not a form of validity in the exacting sense of the
word. To obtain valid and more reliable results in our current survey, the researcher could apply
construct or content validity which are more carefully evaluated as opposed to face validity
which is more or less general measure and the variables often have input. An example in our
study could be after the purchase of goods in the store, the researcher could ask for feedback
from the respondent, particularly if they thought that the products of the store were a good one.
This would enable the researcher to conduct refinements on existing questions the subsequent
research project and adds other dimension(s) of establishing validity.

FACE VALIDITY IN RESEARCH 4
References
Carter, S. L. (2010). Research on Social Validity. The Social Validity Manual, 5(2), 69-106.
doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374897-3.00004-0
Chen-Gaffey, A., & Getsay, H. (2018). Measuring the validity of usage reports provided by e-
book vendors: Emerging research and opportunities (4th ed.). LA.
De Boeck, P., & Elosua, P. (2016). Reliability and Validity. Oxford Clinical Psychology, 8(4),
45-98. doi:10.1093/med:psych/9780199356942.003.0028
Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring research (4th ed.). Boston, IN: Pearson