The Construct of Content Validity

Many behavioral scientists argue that assessments used in social indicators research must be content-valid. However, the concept of content validity has been controversial since its inception. The current unitary conceptualization of validity argues against use of the term content validity, but stresses the importance of content representation in the instrument construction and evaluation processes. However, by arguing against use of this term, the importance of demonstrating content representativeness has been severely undermined. This paper reviews the history of content validity theory to underscore its importance in evaluating construct validity. It is concluded that although measures cannot be “validated” based on content validity evidence alone, demonstration of content validity is a fundamental requirement of all assessment instruments.

[1]  E. Thorndike.  The measurement of intelligence , 1924 .

[2]  Frank S. Freeman,et al.  Interpretation of educational measurements , 1928 .

[3]  W. V. Bingham.  Aptitudes and aptitude testing , 1937 .

[4]  J. P. Guilford,et al.  New Standards For Test Evaluation , 1946 .

[5]  J. G. Jenkins.  Validity for what , 1946 .

[6]  C. I. Mosier.  A Critical Examination of the Concepts of Face Validity , 1947, Educational and psychological measurement.

[7]  H. Gulliksen.  Theory of mental tests , 1952 .

[8]  R. L. Thorndike.  Personnel selection : test and measurement techniques , 1951 .

[9]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Construct validity in psychological tests. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  R. Ebel.  Obtaining and Reporting Evidence on Content Validity , 1956 .

[11]  Roger T. Lennon,et al.  Assumptions Underlying the Use of Content Validity , 1956 .

[12]  J. Loevinger.  Objective Tests as Instruments of Psychological Theory , 1957 .

[13]  Robert L. Ebel,et al.  Must all tests be valid , 1961 .

[14]  Douglas N. Jackson,et al.  Personality Research Form , 1969 .

[15]  D. Jackson.  Personality research form manual , 1974 .

[16]  S. Messick.  THE STANDARD PROBLEM: MEANING AND VALUES IN MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION , 1974 .

[17]  C. H. Lawshe.  A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY , 1975 .

[18]  R. Guion.  Content Validity—The Source of My Discontent , 1977 .

[19]  Mary L. Tenopyr,et al.  CONTENT?CONSTRUCT CONFUSION , 1977 .

[20]  R. Guion.  Scoring of content domain samples: The problem of fairness. , 1978 .

[21]  C. Fitz-Gibbon,et al.  How to Measure Achievement , 1978 .

[22]  R. Guion,et al.  On Trinitarian doctrines of validity. , 1980 .

[23]  S. Messick.  Test validity and the ethics of assessment. , 1980 .

[24]  R. Ebel.  Comments on Some Problems of Employment Testing. , 1977 .

[25]  Lewis R. Aiken,et al.  Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires , 1980 .

[26]  Robert L. Brennan,et al.  A Variance Components Model for Measurement Procedures Associated with a Table of Specifications , 1982 .

[27]  S. Whitely.  Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. , 1983 .

[28]  W. James Popham,et al.  Content Validity at the Crossroads , 1983 .

[29]  S. Embretson.  CONSTRUCT VALIDITY: CONSTRUCT REPRESENTATION VERSUS NOMOTHETIC SPAN , 1983 .

[30]  Anne R. Fitzpatrick.  The Meaning of Content Validity , 1983 .

[31]  Mark L Davison,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling Versus Components Analysis of Test Intercorrelations , 1985 .

[32]  A. Anastasi.  Evolving Concepts of Test Validation , 1986 .

[33]  N. Dorans,et al.  THE INTERNAL CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE SAT1 , 1987 .

[34]  L. Cronbach.  Five perspectives on the validity argument. , 1988 .

[35]  Steven J. Osterlind,et al.  What Is Constructing Test Items , 1989 .

[36]  S. Messick.  Meaning and Values in Test Validation: The Science and Ethics of Assessment , 1989 .

[37]  Linda Crocker,et al.  Quantitative Methods for Assessing the Fit Between Test and Curriculum , 1989 .

[38]  M. Raymond.  Applications of Multidimensional Scaling to Research in the Health Professions , 1989 .

[39]  R. Linn.  Educational measurement, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[40]  Lawrence J. Stricker,et al.  Analyzing test structure by multidimensional scaling , 1990 .

[41]  Ann S. White,et al.  A Comparison of Two Methods for Structuring Performance Domains , 1992 .

[42]  K. Geisinger.  The Metamorphosis to Test Validation , 1992 .

[43]  W. Popham.  Appropriate Expectations for Content Judgments Regarding Teacher Licensure Tests , 1992 .

[44]  Kurt F. Geisinger,et al.  Analyzing Test Content Using Cluster Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling , 1992 .

[45]  Michael T. Kane,et al.  An argument-based approach to validity. , 1992 .

[46]  Lorrie A. Shepard,et al.  Chapter 9: Evaluating Test Validity , 1993 .

[47]  A Multivariate Generalizability Analysis of the 1989 and 1990 AAP Mathematics Test Forms with Respect to the Table of Specifications. , 1993 .

[48]  L. Shepard.  Chapter 9: Evaluating Test Validity , 1993 .

[49]  A. Laduca,et al.  Validation of Professional Licensure Examinations , 1994, Evaluation & the health professions.

[50]  Kurt F. Geisinger,et al.  Using Subject-Matter Experts to Assess Content Representation: An MDS Analysis , 1995 .

[51]  Craig W. Deville,et al.  An Empirical Link of Content and Construct Validity Evidence , 1996 .

[52]  R. Shavelson,et al.  On the Content Validity of Performance Assessments: Centrality of Domain Specification , 1996 .

[53]  B. Zumbo,et al.  A Dialectic on Validity: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going , 1996 .