Question 2
Face Validity is a quick test to determine if a variable is a sensible indicator of the concept it is trying to measure. However, it is a subjective measure and often described as “in the eye of the observer.” In your option, is it appropriate for a researcher to use only this form of validity to check his/her assessment tool? Why or why not? What are some possible concerns with using only Face Validity?
posted by Rachel Johanek @ 10:47 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I agree with how it could be "in the eye of the observer." I think that is is not sufficient enough to use only face validity as an indicator of overall validity of his/her assessment tool. There are many other factors that can contribute to the validity of an instrument. A researcher should also consider looking at content validity, criterion validity, construct validity etc. to get the best idea of how valid the instrument is. Some concerns with using only face validity would be the fact that it is not what the research actually measures, it is what it appears to measure. It is subjective and a qualitative form of measurement and in addition is considered the least "scientific method." It is not based on established theories for support so bottom line, it is probably a weaker form of measurement compared to the others.
I do not think any research or tool would be conducted that only included face validity. I think that it is beneficial as a start to researching whether the variables being used are an appropriate measurement but no research should be considered accurate or valid if face validity was all that was tested. Just as Rachel said, face validity is whether the researcher thinks what they are doing is accurate. This method is incredibly bias and even if other people were to say that, yes, the variables seem accurate it has not been tested. As I mentioned previously, a researcher can begin with face validity but then needs to go into more depth with testing, ect like with content validity.
I do not believe it would be appropriate to use only Face Validity to determine if a variable measures what it is intended to measure, simply because it is subjective and is only based on a review by the researcher. It would be a good tool to utilize in addition to other measures of validity, such as relative, internal, or external validity. Only using Face Validity could incorrectly validate your variable(s). They may not actually be valid, but based on this measurement; it may appear that they are. That is why I think it would be important to use this measure in addition to others to achieve a higher degree of validity of the variable(s).
I do not think it’s appropriate for a researcher to solely use face validity because it is a subjective measurement. Either another form of validity should be used to check his or her assessment tool, or additional people should check the researcher’s assessment tool with face validity and the finding could be discussed among them. Overall, I think it would be important to use more than one validity measurement to ensure the assessment tool is truly valid.
I agree with Bethany’s comment. No research should be considered valid if face validity is the only method used to check an assessment tool. Face validity could be a useful tool before using different methods to assess validity.
I do not think it is appropriate for a researcher to only use face validity to assess a variable. There may be some bias from the researchers if they think their instruments are more valid than they truly are. They may also lie or be dishonest about how valid their instruments are, so their research can continue and their results won’t be rejected. Also, in my opinion, it is always better to use multiple tests to measure validity and reliability because it shows the results are more likely to be accurate.
I agree with everyone so far, that face validity should not be the only measurement used to determine the validity of an instrument. Melanie made a great point that there are several other methods out there to measure validity and they should be used as well to truly validate the variables.
In my opinion, it is not appropriate for a researcher to only use face validity to check his/her assessment tool. If the validity is "in the eye of the beholder," then only that person's opinion matters, and who is to say that they are correct. Results of someone's research may be extremely skewed and inaccurate if the validity of a study's assessment tool is only measured by the researcher themselves.
Face or Content validity is a subjective measure. Given that many assessment tools collect subjective data from the client or patient, this method seems as though it could be appropriate. However, to use Face validity for a research study may not be ethical as there is no real standard to compare to. For this reason, I think Relative validity could be appropriate as it compares the assessment tool to a reference that has previously demonstrated a high degree of validity. A researcher could use internal validity for assessment tools for a specific group of subjects. The issue after using internal validity is when using external validity to apply this to a larger group of non-specific subjects as the method may not be as effective for different circumstances of the subjects. This can somewhat be distinguished from the study I mentioned in response to Question 1. Testing the validity of the 24-hour recall for kids ages 10-12 may not be as effectively attributed to adults ages 30-32.
In agreement with many previous comments, face validity is inappropriate. Results could be very swayed as some researches want nothing more than to be proven correctly. To put it simply, this method does not seem ethical. I guess I would need to see some examples of where/when face validity is or has been used so I can better understand it's purpose. If the researcher is researching for the sole purpose of sharing their opinion and clearly state their intent, I see no problem with face validity.
I do not believe it is appropriate for researchers to use face validity as their only form of validity. The reason being, it is very easy to get tunnel vision when conducting research. I may think that my tool is perfect for conducting my thesis, but I don't have the perspective an outsider would have (or an outside test could provide). Of course a researcher would have confidence that their variable is going to measure what it is 'supposed' to, to proceed any other way is counterproductive. This is precisely why validity measures are so important.
Good point, Kara. I didn't even think about dishonesty in getting work published. This is just another reason why validity and reliability tests are so important.
I do not think that face validity is a good measure of validity on it's own. It would be okay as an initial validity check but more tests on validity would be needed to be able to say that the tool was valid.
Melanie:
I agree with you about face validity not being as strong of a validity test as content, criterion, etc. I agree that other tests would need to be performed before that tool was considered to be valid.
No, I don't think face validity is sufficient as a sole measure of validity. When dealing with research, using only subjective measures weakens the research significantly; findings are only useful when there is a happy marriage between a general consensus that the information and study make sense as well as objective statisical measurements in agreement.
~Anna Taylor
I agree with you, Sarah G; even my subjective assessment of the validity of a measurement would differ from someone else's subjective measurement of the validity of a measurement. What is really needed in studies as objective measurements of validity, not just an opinion or even a general consensus.
~Anna Taylor
Post a Comment
<< Home