Executive Solution Overview
alidity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it claims to measure (Sullivan, 2011). In self-esteem, a valid measure should accurately reflect a person’s self-evaluations and feelings of self-worth (Sullivan, 2011). Several types of validity offer a different lens through which t…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
alidity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it claims to measure (Sullivan, 2011). In self-esteem, a valid measure should accurately reflect a person’s self-evaluations and feelings of self-worth (Sullivan, 2011). Several types of validity offer a different lens through which to examine the instrument’s effectiveness (Sullivan, 2011).
**Types of Validity**
_**Content Validity**_
Content validity assesses whether the items on a measure comprehensively represent the construct of self-esteem (Zamanzadeh et al., 2015). To establish content validity, experts in psychology would review the items to ensure they cover all relevant aspects of self-esteem (e.g., self-worth, confidence, or acceptance) (Zamanzadeh et al., 2015). For example, if a self-esteem scale only includes questions about social confidence and omits self-respect or self-worth, its content validity would be weak (Zamanzadeh et al., 2015).
_**Construct Validity**_
Construct validity evaluates how well the instrument reflects the theoretical components of self-esteem (Strauss & Smith, 2009). This involves two subtypes: (1) convergent and (2) discriminant. For example, for convergent validity, the new self-esteem measure should correlate positively with other established self-esteem scales (e.g., the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) (Strauss & Smith, 2009). In contrast, for discriminant validity, the measure should not strongly correlate with unrelated constructs such as intelligence; this ensures it measures self-esteem specifically (Strauss & Smith, 2009).
_**Criterion-Related Validity**_
This type examines how well the instrument predicts outcomes related to self-esteem (Castro-Piñero et al., 2021). It involves two subtypes: (1) predictive validity and (2) concurrent validity. For predictive validity, the measure should forecast future behavior or outcomes tied to self-esteem, such as mental health or social interactions (Castro-Piñero et al., 2021). Also, for concurrent validity, the measures should correlate with other self-esteem indicators taken simultaneously, like therapist evaluations (Castro-Piñero et al., 2021).
_**Face Validity**_
Face validity refers to whether the items measure self-esteem at face value (Connell et al., 2018). While it is a more superficial form of validity, it affects participants’ engagement with the measure (Connell et al., 2018). Items should be worded and intuitively related to self-esteem to be perceived as credible by respondents (Connell et al., 2018).
**Validating a New Self-Esteem Measure: The Process**
Validating a new self-esteem measure will take several steps, as described in the following section. Researchers should define self-esteem based on theoretical and empirical literature (Boateng et al., 2018). Then, create a pool of items that reflect the full scope of the self-esteem construct by using existing measures and focus groups (Boateng et al., 2018). Psychological experts should review the items to examine content validity (Boateng et al., 2018). They should also administer the draft measure to a small sample population (Boateng et al., 2018). After these steps are complete, examiners should conduct exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis to examine the underlying structure of the measure; this helps determine whether items group together in expected ways (Boateng et al., 2018). Then, researchers should measure internal consistency to ensure the items work well together and test for different types of validity. Investigators should establish norms and conduct ongoing evaluations (Boateng et al., 2018).
**References**
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. _Frontiers in Public Health, 6_, 149. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149)
Castro-Piñero, J., Marin-Jimenez, N., Fernandez-Santos, J. R., Martin-Acosta, F., Segura-Jimenez, V., Izquierdo-Gomez, R., Ruiz, J. R., & Cuenca-Garcia, M. (2021). Criterion-related validity of field-based fitness tests in adults: A systematic review. _Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10_(16), 3743. [https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163743](https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163743)
Connell, J., Carlton, J., Grundy, A., Taylor Buck, E., Keetharuth, A. D., Ricketts, T., Barkham, M., Robotham, D., Rose, D., & Brazier, J. (2018). The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: Lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL). _Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality-of-Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27_(7), 1893–1902. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y)
Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. _Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5_, 1–25. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639)
Sullivan, G. M. (2011). A primer on the validity of assessment instruments. _Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3_(2), 119–120. [https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00075.1](https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00075.1)
Zamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Alavi-Majd, H., & Nikanfar, A. R. (2015). Design and implementation content validity study: Development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. _Journal of Caring Sciences, 4_(2), 165–178. [https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017](https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017)
“`
“`
[**Reply**](https://keiseruniversity.blackboard.com/webapps/discussionboard/do/message?action=list_messages&course_id=_565860_1&nav=discussion_board&conf_id=_517041_1&forum_id=_2637670_1&message_id=_26915793_1#)
– 2 years ago