Ad
related to: face validity in qualitative research
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Face validity is often contrasted with content validity and construct validity. Some people use the term face validity to refer only to the validity of a test to observers who are not expert in testing methodologies. For instance, if a test is designed to measure whether children are good spellers, and parents are asked whether the test is a ...
In qualitative research, a member check, also known as informant feedback or respondent validation, is a technique used by researchers to help improve the accuracy, credibility, validity, and transferability (also known as applicability, internal validity, [1] or fittingness) of a study. [2]
The validity of a measurement tool (for example, a test in education) is the degree to which the tool measures what it claims to measure. [3] Validity is based on the strength of a collection of different types of evidence (e.g. face validity, construct validity, etc.) described in greater detail below.
A central issue in qualitative research is trustworthiness (also known as credibility or, in quantitative studies, validity). [39] There are many ways of establishing trustworthiness, including member check , interviewer corroboration, peer debriefing, prolonged engagement, negative case analysis, auditability, confirmability, bracketing, and ...
Finally, triangulation within research is a method that can be used to increase the findings validity and credibility. [13] Triangulation in research refers to the use of a variety of methods or data sources as a means of developing a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the subject at hand. [14]
A fundamental difficulty with focus groups (and other forms of qualitative research) is the issue of observer dependency: the results obtained are influenced by the researcher or his or her reading of the group's discussion, thus raising questions of the validity of the research (see experimenter's bias).
Postqualitative inquiry is a research philosophy proposed by University of Georgia Professor of Education Elizabeth St. Pierre [1] in 2011 that advocates for an intentional deconstructive stance toward concepts within traditional research methods on human subjects, such as interviews, data analysis, and validity. [2]
The validity of each sentence completion test must be determined independently and this depends on the instructions laid out in the scoring booklet. Compared to positivist instruments, such as Likert-type scales, sentence completion tests tend to have high face validity (i.e., the extent to which measurement items accurately reflect the concept ...