Validity and Validation in Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences

Abstract

This new series aims to provide a public forum for single treatises and collections of papers on social indicators research that are too long to be published in our journal Social Indicators Research. Like the journal, the book series deals with statistical assessments of the quality of life from a broad perspective, It welcomes the research on a wide variety of substantive areas, including health, crime, housing, education, family life, leisure activities, transportation, mobility, economics, work, religion and environmental issues. These areas of research will focus on the impact of key issues such as health on the overall quality of life and vice versa. An international review board, consisting of Ruut Veenhoven, Joachim Vogel, Ed Diener, Torbjorn Moum, Mirjam A.G. Sprangers and Wolfgang Glatzer, will ensure the high quality of the series as a whole. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher's location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) PrefaceIn this edited volume, 15 research syntheses of the validity evidence reported in different research areas are presented. The chapters were purposefully chosen to reflect a wide variety of disciplines, journals, or measures. Eight of the chapters focused on particular journals ranging from measurement and assessment journals like Educational and Psychological M...

A Systematic Review of Validation Practices for the Goal Attainment Scaling Measure

“…Most validity evidence tended to focus on relations to other variables, or reliability. The concentration of data in these areas is not uncommon and is similar to the findings by Zumbo and Chan (2014). They note that the high concentration of this evidence brings some difficulty interpreting evidence and building a sound validity argument.…”

“…Altogether, building a validity argument is a key aspect of strengthening score interpretations. Although reliability is a part of the validity argument and provides insight into the consistency of the GAS scores, it contributes minimally to the accuracy of the findings and is not a substitute for validity (Barry, Chaney, Piazza-Gardner, & Chavarria, 2014; Zumbo & Chan, 2014). Reliability was reported in almost all reviewed articles; however, it is not enough to justify the use of the GAS score.…”

“…Validity information provides evidence related to the content of tools that are used to measure phenomenon, as well as the interpretations and inferences that are made from their scores. While validity provides critical information about measures, it has also been reported that validation practices are inconsistent, and that there is a disconnect between the practice of validation and validity theory (Shankar, Miller, Roberson, & Hubley, 2019; Zumbo & Chan, 2014). Previous evidence has noted an imbalance in validity evidence presented and a lack of explicit reference to a validity framework (Shear & Zumbo, 2014).…”

Strengthening the foundation of educational psychology by integrating construct validation into open science reform

“…Factor and reliability analyses are common approaches to assessing psychometric quality (Zumbo & Chan, 2014), and quantifying a measure's predictive ability for a key outcome or association with a theoretically relevant construct can provide further evidence. A rigorous initial validation study for the development of a new measure would ideally incorporate multiple studies addressing these various aspects of construct validation by utilizing a collection of methodologies.…”

The Health Literacy Questionnaire: Initial Validity Testing in a Norwegian Sample

“…There is a growing acceptance of the view that the validation of self-reported instruments should be seen as an accumulation and evaluation of sources of validity evidence (American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014; Kane, 2013;Zumbo & Chan, 2014). Rather than relying on a strict factor analysis of psychometrical properties alone, according to Hawkins et al, (2018), the validation of HLQ should be based on a network of different empirical evidence that supports the intended interpretation and use of HLQ scores.…”