2012
DOI: 10.1177/0748175612440286
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recalculation of the Critical Values for Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio

Abstract: The content validity ratio (Lawshe) is one of the earliest and most widely used methods for quantifying content validity. To correct and expand the table, critical values in unit steps and at multiple alpha levels were computed. Implications for content validation are discussed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
359
2
54

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 491 publications
(416 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
359
2
54
Order By: Relevance
“…The raters assessed the items based on the definitions of particular deconversion processes, in accordance with the method proposed by Lawshe (1975), using a three-point format ("relevant to the measurement," "useful for the measurement but not capturing the essence," "irrelevant"). For each item we computed the content validity ratio (CVR) and compared it with the criterion of CVR .425, corresponding to p < .01 for a one-way test (Wilson, Pan, & Schumsky, 2012). On that basis, we included 42 items in the preliminary version of the scale, with a four-point answer format expressing the degree of similarity between item content and the participant (0 -completely untrue about me; 1 -somewhat true about me; 2 -true about me; 3 -very true about me).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The raters assessed the items based on the definitions of particular deconversion processes, in accordance with the method proposed by Lawshe (1975), using a three-point format ("relevant to the measurement," "useful for the measurement but not capturing the essence," "irrelevant"). For each item we computed the content validity ratio (CVR) and compared it with the criterion of CVR .425, corresponding to p < .01 for a one-way test (Wilson, Pan, & Schumsky, 2012). On that basis, we included 42 items in the preliminary version of the scale, with a four-point answer format expressing the degree of similarity between item content and the participant (0 -completely untrue about me; 1 -somewhat true about me; 2 -true about me; 3 -very true about me).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The validation result is analyzed using Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and compared to the critical value 7 . According to Lawshe to set the CVR value is using the formula:…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Where face validity is concerned with appearance of the assessment technique as appropriate to those who are assessed (Moerdyk 2015), content validity is normally judged by subject matter experts (Cohen et al 2013;Gregory 2011). Though techniques used to assess magnitude of content validity differ (see Lawshe 1975;Martuza 1977;Polit & Beck 2006;Wilson, Pan & Schumsky 2012), they basically consist of measures of agreement between experts on appropriateness of items. Important to note is that these ratios or coefficients are reflective of the validity of the items included in the assessment and tell us nothing about the items which should be included to make the existing pool of items representative of the universe of behaviour that the test was designed to assess (Gregory 2011).…”
Section: Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%