Types of validity across all methods of investigation

• Validity= is the result legitimate?

  Is it genuine and represents what is actually 'out there' in the real world
• Data can be reliable but not valid. For example, a test that claims to measure intelligence (IQ test) may produce the same result every time when the same people are tested but not measure what it is designed to
• Ecological validity:

  refers to wether findings can be generalised from one setting to another, most particularly generalised to everyday life. This may not be related to the setting (e.g. a lab) but more to the task that participants are asked to perform
• Temporal validity:

  Findings should be consistent over time. For example, Asch's study may lack temporal validity because it was conducted during a conformist era in American history
• What are the two types of validity?

  Temporal and ecological
• What are the two ways to assess reliability?

  Face validity and concurrent validity
• Face validity:

  A basic method to assess validity- does the test measure what it's supposed to measure 'on the face of it'? (whether it looks like it does)

  This is achieved by simply 'eyeballing' the measuring instrument or by passing it to an expert to check
• Concurrent validity:

  A new intelligence test, for instance, may be administered to a group of participants

  Their scores are then compared with performance on a well-established test (correlation should exceed +.8 for validity)
• Improving validity in experiments: control group and standardisation:

  A control group means that the researcher is more confident that changes in the DV were due to the effect of the IV

  Standardised procedures minimise the impact of participant reactivity and investigator effects
• Improving validity in questionnaires: lie scale and confidentiality:

  Lie scales control for the effects of social desirability bias

  Respondents are assured that all data submitted is confidential
• Improving validity in observations: good categories:

  Behavioural categories that are well-defined, thoroughly operationalised and not ambiguous or overlapping
• Improving validity in qualitative research: interpretive validity and triangulation:

  Interpretive validity demonstrated through the coherence of the reporting and the inclusion of direct quotes from participants

  Triangulation involves using a number of different sources as evidence (e.g. interview data, personal diaries, etc)