Details of content validity and objectifying it in instrument development
Background & Aim: Researchers in the nursing science study complex constructs for which valid and reliable instruments are needed. When an instrument is created, psychometric testing is required, and the first-step is to study the content validity of the instrument. This article focuses on the process used to assess the content validity.
Methods & Materials: This article examines the definition, importance, conceptual basis, and functional nature of content validity in instrument development. The conditional and dynamic nature of content validity is discussed, and multiple elements of content validity along with quantitative and qualitative methods of content validation are reviewed.
Results: In content validity process, content representativeness or content relevance of the items of an instrument is determined by the application of a two-stage (development and judgment) process. In this review, we demonstrate how to conduct content validity process, to collect specific
data for items generation and calculation of content validity ratio, content validity index, modified Kappa coefficient, and to guide for interpreting these indices. Face validity through suggestions of expert panel and item impact scores is also discussed in paper.
Conclusion: Understanding content validity is important for nursing researchers because they should realize if the instruments they use for their studies are suitable for the construct, population under study, and sociocultural background in which the study is carried out, or there is a need for new or modified instruments.
McGartland Rubio D, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Re- search 2003; 27(2): 94-104.
DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, et al. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh 2007; 39(2): 155-64.
Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986; 35(6): 382-5.
Waltz C, Strickland OL, Lenz E. Measure- ment in Nursing and Health Research. 4th ed. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Com- pany; 2010. p. 163.
Newman I, Lim J. Content validity using a mixed methods approach: its application and development through the use of a table of specifications methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2013; 7(3): 243-60.
Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity in- dex: are you sure you know what's being re- ported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006; 29(5): 489-97.
Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating con- tent validity. West J Nurs Res 2003; 25(5): 508-18.
Yaghmale F. Content validity and its estima- tion. Journal of Medical Education 2003; 3(1): 25-7.
Anastasi A. Psychological testing. 6 th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1988.
Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007; 30(4): 459-67.
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. Ventura, CA: Cram101 Incor- porated, 2006.
Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health 1997; 20(3): 269-74.
Beck CT. Content validity exercises for nursing students. J Nurs Educ 1999; 38(3): 133-5.
Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs 2007; 16(2): 234-43.
Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1979.
Cronbach LJ, Thornton GC. Test items to accompany Essentials of Psychological Testing. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1970.
Messick S. Evidence and Ethics in the Eval- uation of Tests. Educational Researcher 1981; 10(9): 9-20.
Beck CT, Gable RK. Ensuring content valid- ity: an illustration of the process. J Nurs Meas 2001; 9(2): 201-15.
Wilson HS. Research in nursing. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley; 1989.
Tilden VP, Nelson CA, May BA. Use of qualitative methods to enhance content va- lidity. Nurs Res 1990; 39(3): 172-5.
Ridenour CS, Benz CR, Newman I. Mixed methods research: exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press; 2008.
Priest J, McColl BA, Thomas L, Bond S. Developing and refining a new measurement tool. Nurse Researcher 1995; 2: 69-81.
Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. London, UK: Open University Press; 1997.
Grant JS, Kinney MR. Using the Delphi technique to examine the content validity of nursing diagnoses. Nurs Diagn 1992; 3(1): 12-22.
Lindsey Davis L. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research 1992; 5(4): 194-7.
Safikhani S, Sundaram M, Bao Y, Mulani P, Revicki DA. Qualitative assessment of the content validity of the Dermatology Life Quality Index in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. J Dermatolog Treat 2013; 24(1): 50-9.
Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to con- tent validity. Personnel Psychology 1975; 28(4): 563-75.
Wilson FR. Recalculation of the critical val- ues for Lawshe's content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 2012; 45(3): 197-210.
Waltz CF, Bausell RB. Nursing research: design, statistics, and computer analysis. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Co.; 1981.
Abdollahpour I, Nedjat S, Noroozian M, Maj- dzadeh R. Performing content validation pro- cess in development of questionnaires. Iran J Epidemiol 2010; 6(4): 66-74. [In Persian].
Brennan PF, Hays BJ. The kappa statistic for establishing interrater reliability in the secondary analysis of qualitative clinical da- ta. Res Nurs Health 1992; 15(2): 153-8.
Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA. Developing cri- teria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. Am J Ment Defic 1981; 86(2): 127-37.
Asadi-Lari M, Packham C, Gray D. Psy- chometric properties of a new health needs analysis tool designed for cardiac patients. Public Health 2005; 119(7): 590-8.
Banna JC, Vera Becerra LE, Kaiser LL, Townsend MS. Using qualitative methods to improve questionnaires for Spanish speak- ers: assessing face validity of a food behav- ior checklist. J Am Diet Assoc 2010; 110(1): 80-90.
Lacasse Y, Godbout C, Series F. Health- related quality of life in obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur Respir J 2002; 19(3): 499-503.
|Issue||Vol 1 No 3 (2014): Summer|
|content validity instrument development psychometric properties questionnaire|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|