top of page



Videos - Mr Validity

Validity can be described in different ways based on the context in question. Generally, it is the accuracy of the conclusion, measurement, and concept correspondence to whatever is being tested. In this lesson, validity will be the main focus of assessments.

Videos - Mr Validity

Download File:

The term validity has varied meanings depending on the context in which it is being used. Validity generally refers to how accurately a conclusion, measurement, or concept corresponds to what is being tested. For this lesson, we will focus on validity in assessments.

Before examining how validity is measured and assessing the various types that exist, it is necessary to note external and internal factors that affect validity. Internal validity is the extent to which variables tested are not affected by other factors while external validity is the degree of confidence to which the test results apply to other general contexts. Examples of external validity include the population studied and the environment.

Validity in assessment is measured using coefficients. Correlation coefficients determine the relationship between two or more variables, in addition to their agreeability. The measurement involves two scores from two different assessments or measures calculated to get a figure between 0 and 1. The closer the coefficient is to 1, the higher the validity.

Validity is the accurate conclusion of measurement or concept corresponding to the test conducted. It is how an assessment accurately depicts what needs to be measured. There are three types of validity, content, construct, and predictive. Content validity refers to how an assessment represents all areas addressed by a test. It identifies whether an assessment is representative of the content that needs evaluation. Construct validity looks into immeasurable traits that cannot be measured except through specific indicators. These traits include self-esteem, happiness, and motivation.

On the other hand, predictive validity refers to the extent to which a score on an assessment predicts future performance. High predictive validity is represented by a coefficient of anything between 0 to 1. Companies or colleges will administer a test to a group to determine the predictive validity of an assessment and then measure the group's success in the behavior being predicted after a few weeks or months. The higher the validity coefficient, the higher the predictive validity.

A student's reading ability can have an impact on the validity of an assessment. For example, if a student has a hard time comprehending what a question is asking, a test will not be an accurate assessment of what the student truly knows about a subject. Educators should ensure that an assessment is at the correct reading level of the student.

Student self-efficacy can also impact validity of an assessment. If students have low self-efficacy, or beliefs about their abilities in the particular area they are being tested in, they will typically perform lower. Their own doubts hinder their ability to accurately demonstrate knowledge and comprehension.

Validity is measured using a coefficient. Typically, two scores from two assessments or measures are calculated to determine a number between 0 and 1. Higher coefficients indicate higher validity. Generally, assessments with a coefficient of .60 and above are considered acceptable or highly valid.

There are three types of validity that we should consider: content, predictive, and construct validity. Content validity refers to the extent to which an assessment represents all facets of tasks within the domain being assessed. Content validity answers the question: Does the assessment cover a representative sample of the content that should be assessed?

For example, if you gave your students an end-of-the-year cumulative exam but the test only covered material presented in the last three weeks of class, the exam would have low content validity. The entire semester worth of material would not be represented on the exam.

Educators should strive for high content validity, especially for summative assessment purposes. Summative assessments are used to determine the knowledge students have gained during a specific time period.

In order to determine the predictive ability of an assessment, companies, such as the College Board, often administer a test to a group of people, and then a few years or months later, will measure the same group's success or competence in the behavior being predicted. A validity coefficient is then calculated, and higher coefficients indicate greater predictive validity.

The final type of validity we will discuss is construct validity. In order to understand construct validity we must first define the term construct. In psychology, a construct refers to an internal trait that cannot be directly observed but must be inferred from consistent behavior observed in people. Self-esteem, intelligence, and motivation are all examples of a construct.

Construct validity, then, refers to the extent to which an assessment accurately measures the construct. This answers the question of: are we actually measuring what we think we are measuring?

In summary, validity is the extent to which an assessment accurately measures what it is intended to measure. Validity is impacted by various factors, including reading ability, self-efficacy, and test anxiety level. Validity is measured through a coefficient, with high validity closer to 1 and low validity closer to 0. The three types of validity for assessment purposes are content, predictive and construct validity.

The VA MSST is an evidence-based flowchart screening and decision support tool that demonstrates excellent interrater reliability across disciplines and settings. VA MSST has strong face and content validity, as well as good concurrent and construct validity.

Given that raters with varying skill levels will use the VA MSST to rate a diverse patient population with wide range of immobility factors, the VA MSST should produce minimal errors, be equally applicable across patients and demonstrate rater agreement in mobility status assignment. Rating error can lead a rater to determine the inappropriate mobility level of a patient which may result in higher risk of patient falls. The VA MSST also needs to demonstrate strong validity for the intended dual purpose of mobility screening and decision support when choosing SPHM equipment. This manuscript describes the development of the VA MSST tool, its interrater reliability and validity assessments, and qualitative comments from raters on the clarity and ease of use of the tool. 041b061a72


bottom of page