Dear colleagues
in contrast to the traditional approaches to validity, the argument-based approach emphasized the claims rather than the constructs. do you think this shift from constructs to claims makes the validation process more practical, and abstract or tangible in conceptualization?
Your ideas are highly appreciated
Sincerely
Validity basically evaluates whether a measure assesses what it is supposed or intended to measure, so there could be various subjective, intersubjective and objective means of assessing validity, via numbers. words, comparisons, ratings using argument, meditation, concepts, constructs etc., the more varying the means the more valid, accurate and realistic the validity of truth claims, probability, statistical significance etc. If the choice of approach/method fits the problem, issue or event being investigated, then optimal validity evaluation should accrue.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology