Dear Nanjiba Nishat Tafannum

For validity you need to apply framework.

Messick Validity Framework

"What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching?"

Clinical Review Published: December 2005 Volume 20, pages 1159–1164, (2005)

Source: Article What is the Validity Evidence for Assessments of Clinical Teaching?

Regards,

Yawar Khan

Past researches in similar field and expert suggestions can be a logical source. Thanks

A framework model can be create to provide a straightforward method for verifying your methodology's validation process, which includes a set of procedures to determine the number of activities in sequential processes.

The process can categorize as four stages. However, It is not limited to these four stages alone.

Stage 1: Assessment phase: which focus on the overall pattern of evidence from different segments of data from pilot studies, interviews, observations, or alignment checks with theoretical frameworks? Furthermore, the initial crosscheck assessment is crucial at this stage to develop through the evidence and explore the phenomenon in this process.

Stage 2: Adjustments: The results of assessments are transfer to stage two for confirmation of corroboration from multiple sources of evidence from stage one.

Stage 3: validation of the methodology process needs to be conduct repeatedly through expert interviews to crosscheck its results with findings from other sources until they fall within an acceptable range.

Stage 4: Application: Although the experts may validate the conclusions of the findings from the methodology process and observation through a crosschecking process, the link between actual applications, claims, function, and policy needs to be re-checking to finalize a reasonable outcome.

That’s a really thoughtful approach it’s great that you’re thinking about methodological fit before diving into full-scale data collection. A few things tend to help us researchers feel more confident about the chosen methods:

First, make sure your methodology aligns well with your research questions and the theoretical framework you're working from. It sounds obvious, but it’s surprisingly easy to get swept up in a method you like, only to realize later it doesn’t quite answer what you're asking.

One of the best ways to test this alignment is through a pilot study. Even something small scale can reveal a lot whether your instruments are working, if participants understand the questions, or if your logistics are realistic. It also gives you a sense of whether the data you’re collecting is actually helping to answer your research questions.

Getting feedback from others is also key. Run your design by an advisor, a methodologist, or even peers. Sometimes just explaining your design aloud helps clarify things (or expose gaps you didn’t notice).

Also worth considering: does your approach reflect how similar studies in your field have handled similar questions? You don’t have to copy them, but if you’re doing something different, be ready to justify why.

Lastly, think about what “validity” means in your context are you aiming for reliability and replicability (more quantitative)? Or credibility and transferability (more qualitative)? Whichever it is, make sure your methods support those goals.

Hope that helps!