Validity - This is one of the basic criteria in the psychodiagnostics of tests, methods, determining their quality, close to the concept of reliability. It is used when it is necessary to find out how well a technique measures exactly what it is focused on, respectively, how much better the quality of the test is displayed, the greater the validity of this technique.

The question of validity arises first in the process of developing the material, then after applying the test or methodology, if you need to know whether the degree of expression of the personality characteristic to be determined corresponds to the method of measuring this property.

The notion of validity is expressed by the correlation of results, which are obtained as a result of applying a test or method with other characteristics, which are also being researched, and it can also be argued in a comprehensive way, using different techniques and criteria. Different types of validity are used: conceptual, constructive, criterial, substantive validity, with intrinsic methods of establishing their degree of reliability. Sometimes the validity criterion is a mandatory requirement for testing psychodiagnostic methods, if they are in doubt.

In order for psychological research to have real value, it must be not only valid, but also reliable at the same time. Reliability allows the experimenter to be sure that the test value is very close to the true figure. A valid criterion is important in that it indicates that what the experimenter assumes is being studied. It is important to pay attention to the fact that this criterion can suggest reliability, but reliability cannot assume validity. Reliable values ​​may not be valid, but valid values ​​must be reliable, this is the essence of successful research and testing.

Validity is in psychology

In psychology, the concept of validity denotes the experimenter's confidence that he measured exactly what he wanted with the help of a certain method, shows a measure of the conformity of the results and the method itself with respect to the tasks set. Valid measurement is the value that measures exactly what it was created for. For example, a technique aimed at determining temperament should measure precisely temperament, and not something else.

Validity in experimental psychology is a very important aspect, is an important indicator that ensures the reliability of the results, and with it sometimes the most problems arise. The perfect experiment must have impeccable validity, that is, it must demonstrate that the experimental effect is caused by modifications of the independent variable and fully correspond to reality. The results obtained without limitation can be generalized. If we are talking about the degree of this criterion, it is assumed that the results will correspond to the tasks set.

Validation is carried out in three ways.

Evaluation of substantive validity is carried out to find out the level of compliance of the used methodology and reality, in which the property under investigation is expressed in the methodology. There is also such a component as the obvious one; it is also called facial validity; it characterizes the degree of conformity of the test to the expectations of the assessed ones. In most methodologies, it is considered very important that the participant of the assessment sees an obvious connection between the content of the assessment procedure and the validity of the object of assessment.

Assessment of construct validity is performed to obtain the degree of validity that the test actually calculates those constructs that are given and scientifically grounded.

There are two directions in construct validity. The first is called convergent validation, it is used to check the expected relationship between the results of the method and the characteristics of other methods that measure the original properties. If several methods are needed to measure a characteristic, then a rational solution would be to conduct experiments with at least two methods so that, when comparing the results to reveal a high positive correlation, one could argue about a valid criterion.

Convergent validation determines the likelihood of a test score variation with expectations. The second approach, called discriminant validation, is that the technique should not measure any characteristics with which theoretically there should be no correlation.

Verification for validity is also criterion; it is guided by statistical methods that determines the degree of compliance of the results with predetermined external criteria. Such criteria can be: immediate measures, independent of the results of the methodology or the value of socially-organizational significant performance indicators. In criterion validity, prognostic one is also distinguished; it is used when there is a need to predict behavior. And if it turns out that this prediction is carried out with time, then the method is prognostically valid.

The validity of the test is

A test is a standardized task as a result of the application, which provides data on the psycho-physiological state of a person and his personal properties, his knowledge, abilities and skills.

Validity and reliability of tests are two indicators that determine their quality.

The validity of the test determines the degree of compliance of the studied quality, characteristics, psychological properties to the test, with which they are determined.

The validity of the test is an indicator of its effectiveness and applicability to the measurement of the required characteristics. The highest quality tests have 80% validity. When validating, it should be borne in mind that the quality of the results will depend on the contingent of subjects and their characteristics. It turns out that one test can be both highly reliable and completely invalid.

There are several approaches to determining the validity of the test.

When measuring a complex psychological phenomenon that has a hierarchical structure and cannot be investigated using just one test, constructive validity is applied. It determines the accuracy of the study of complex, structured psychological phenomena, personality traits, as measured by testing.

Validity behind the criterion is such a criterion of the test, beyond which the psychological phenomenon under investigation is currently determined and the prediction of the features of this phenomenon in the future. For this, the results obtained during testing are correlated with the degree of development of the measured quality in practice, the assessment of specific abilities in a particular activity. If the validity of the test is at least 0.2, then the use of such a test is justified.

Content validity is a test criterion, which is used to determine the compliance of the area of ​​its measured psychological constructs, demonstrates all the completeness of the set of measured indicators.

Prognostic validity is a criterion beyond which it is possible to predict the nature of the development of the quality studied in the future. Such a criterion of test quality is very valuable, if viewed from the practical side, but there can be difficulties, since uneven development of a given quality in different people is excluded.

Test reliability is a test criterion that measures the level of stability of the results obtained after testing, with repeated research. It is determined by secondary testing after a certain amount of time and calculating the correlation coefficient of the results obtained after the first and after the second testing. It is also important to take into account the peculiarities of the test procedure itself and the socio-psychological structure of the sample. The same test may have different reliability, depending on gender, age, social status of the study. Therefore, reliability can sometimes have inaccuracies, errors that expire from the research process itself, so ways are being sought for how to reduce the influence of certain factors on testing. It can be argued about the reliability of the test, if it is a value of 0.8-0.9.

Validity and reliability of tests are very important because they define a test as a measuring tool. When reliability and validity are unknown, the test is considered not applicable for use.

In the measurement of reliability and validity, there is also an ethical context. This is especially important when test results are significant in using them to make people's vital decisions. Some people are recruited, others are screened out, some students go to educational institutions, while others have to finish their studies first, psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is determined for someone, and someone is healthy - this all means that such decisions are made on the basis of study assessing behavior or special abilities. For example, a job seeker should be tested, and his grades are decisive indicators for admission to work, he finds out that the test was not too valid and reliable, he would be very disappointed.

The validity of the technique is

The validity of the methodology determines the conformity of what is studied by this methodology, to what it is intended to study.

For example, if a psychological method, which is based on informed self-report, is assigned to study a certain quality of personality, of a quality that cannot be correctly assessed by the person, then this method will not be valid.

In most cases, the answers that the subject gives to questions about the presence or lack of development in him of this quality may express how the subject himself perceives himself, or how he would like to be in the eyes of other people.

Validity is also a basic requirement for the psychological method of studying psychological constructs. There is a mass of different types of this criterion, and so far there is not a single opinion on how to correctly name these types and it is not known exactly which types of methods should comply with. If the technique is invalid externally or internally, it is not recommended to use it. There are two approaches to validating the method.

The theoretical approach is revealed in order to show how truly a technique measures exactly the quality that, as the researcher invented, and is obliged to measure. This is proved through compilation with related indicators and those where there could be no connections. Therefore, in order to confirm a theoretical valid criterion, it is necessary to determine the degree of links with the related methodology, meaning the convergent criterion and the absence of such a connection with methods that have a different theoretical basis (discriminant validity).

Evaluation of the validity of the methodology can be quantitative or qualitative. For a pragmatic approach, the effectiveness and practical significance of the methodology is evaluated, and an independent criterion from the outside is used to carry it out as an indicator of the occurrence of a given quality in everyday life. Such a criterion, for example, can be academic performance (for methods of achievement, tests for intelligence), subjective assessments (for personal methods), specific abilities, drawing, modeling (for methods of special features).

To prove the validity of external criteria, there are four types: performance criteria - these are criteria such as the number of tasks completed, the time spent on training; subjective criteria are obtained along with questionnaires, interviews or questionnaires; physiological - pulse rate, pressure, physical symptoms; randomness criteria are used when the target or influence of a specific event or circumstance has a goal.

When choosing a research methodology, it is of theoretical and practical importance to determine the coverage of the characteristics studied, as an important component of validity. The information contained in the name of the methodology is almost always not sufficient to judge the scope of its application. This is just the name of the method, but there is always a lot of things under it. A good example would be the proofreading technique. Here, the scope of the studied properties includes concentration of attention, stability and psychomotor speed of the processes. This technique provides an assessment of the severity of these qualities in the individual, correlate well with the values ​​obtained from other methods and has good validity. At the same time, the values ​​obtained as a result of carrying out the proof-test are subject to a greater influence of other factors with respect to which the method will be nonspecific. If you apply a proof test to measure them, then the validity will be low. It turns out that determining the scope of the methodology, a valid criterion reflects the level of validity of the research results. With a small number of accompanying factors that have an impact on the results, the reliability of the estimates obtained in the methodology will be higher. The accuracy of the results is also determined using a set of measured properties, their importance in performing diagnostics of a complex activity, and the materiality of the object of measurement displayed in the material of the methodology. For example, to meet the requirements of reliability and reliability, the methodology assigned to the professional selection should have an analysis of a wide range of different indicators that are most important in achieving success in the profession.

Types of validity

Valid criterion is of several types, depending on what it is directed.

Internal validity determines how experimentally determined effects caused changes in this experiment.

Internal validity is determined by the relationship between independent and dependent variables, and passes through specific procedures, which result in determining the reliability of the findings in this study. An internal criterion is stated when it is reliably known that a cause-effect type is dependent between independent and dependent variables.

The validity of the study is determined by the influence of uncontrolled situational factors on the phenomenon being studied. If it is high, this criterion will be low. High internal validity of the research is a sign of qualitative research.

External validity summarizes the findings of the population, the situation and other independent variables. The ability to transfer the results obtained in the study to real life depends on how high and good external validity is.

Very often, external and internal validation contradict each other, because if one validity increases, this value may affect the performance of another. The best option is considered to be the choice of experimental plans that would provide two types of this criterion. This is especially important in the case of studies in which the distribution of results in certain practical situations is important.

Content validity is applicable to those tests in which a certain activity is fully modeled, in the first place, the aspect related to the subject. It turns out that the main aspects of the psychological construct are reflected in the very content of the methodology. If this characteristic has a complex structure, then all the elements included in it must be present in the method itself. Such a valid criterion is determined with the help of a systematic control over the content, it should show the completeness of the coverage of the entire sample beyond the measured parameters. On this basis, an empirical verification of the methodology should be carried out in accordance with its hypotheses. Each task or question in the assigned area should have an equal chance of including it in the test assignments.

Empirical validity is determined through a statistical correlation, that is, the correlation of the test scores and the indicators of an external parameter chosen as a criterion of validity is considered.

Constructive validity refers to a theoretical construct as a separate one and is included in the search for factors that explain a person’s behavior when performing a test or procedure.

The prognostic type of validity is determined by the presence of a very reliable external criterion, although information about it is collected some time after the end of the test. Such an external criterion may be the ability of the individual to a particular type of activity for which he was selected for the results of psychodiagnostic measurements. The accuracy of prediction in this valid criterion is in the opposite dependence on the time that was given for prediction. And the more time passes after the study, the more factors will be taken into account for evaluating the prognostic significance of the test. Хотя учесть абсолютно все имеющиеся факторы практически невозможно.

Ретроспективная валидность определяется за критерием, который отражает события или сстояние свойства в прошлом времени. It can be used to gain knowledge about the predictive aspects of the methodology. Very often, in such tests, assessments of the development of ability in their past meaning are compared, and at the moment, it is computed how effectively the results have become.

Ecological validity shows that a certain organism, due to hereditary, genetically determined or acquired features, is prepared to demonstrate various forms of behavior in various contexts or in different habitats. The actions of the organism may be successful in one time and place, but not so successful or not at all successful in another time and another place.

Environmental validity is confirmed if the study results are confirmed or properly applied in field studies. The problem of laboratory research is adequate tolerance of the results obtained to the conditions of real life, to the daily activities of the individual, which lasts naturally. But this, too, is not the final confirmation of the results, as ecologically valid, because it also implies generalization for other conditions and circumstances. Often, studies are accused of a low, environmental valid criteria, but the whole reason is the inability to repeat the study in real life.