Determination and quantification of content validity.

By M. Lynn, Mary R. Lynn. 1986

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospects (2018, methodology): “In keeping with recommendations on using the CVR method for item selection (Davis, 1992; Gilbert & Prion, 2016; Lynn, 1986), items that are rated as either "essential" or "useful" by more than 50% of the professionals were selected for further analysis; items that did not meet this criteria were…”
Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. (2007, background): “The table excludes two experts because we agree with Lynn (1986) that three experts should be the minimal acceptable number for a content validation effort.”
Conceptualizing and testing a new tripartite measure of coach interpersonal behaviors (2019, methodology): “We used the experts’ ratings to calculate the Content Validity Index (CVI; Lynn, 1986) for each item and to reach decisions for retention, revision, or elimination of items.”
Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research (2012, methodology): “For contentvalidation tasks, such as those proposed in the closed sort task, two to 24 participants have been shown to be sufficient [29-32], with more than five participants reducing the influence of rater outliers [33].”
Development and validation of attitudes measurement scales: fundamental and practical aspects (2019, methodology): “Lawshe (1975) proposed an approach called content validity ratio (CVR), Lynn (1986) further explored the index of content validity and Ayre and Scally (2014) reproduced Lawshe’s CVR to build a critical CVR values’ table, which is very useful as a guide to the freshman researcher.”
Getting the Focus and the Group: Enhancing Analytical Rigor in Focus Group Research (2000, methodology): “, independent coding), content validity indexes (Atwood & Hinds, 1986; Lynn, 1986), or comparison with themes or theory in extant literature (Morgan, 1986; Morgan & Spanish, 1985; Torn & McNichol, 1998).”
The Development and Initial Validation of a Career Calling Scale for Emerging Adults (2015, unknown): “Based on their ratings (0 ¼ not at all adequate ; 4 ¼ very adequate ), 52 items with a content validity index of (cid:2) .83 (i.e., five of the six experts rated the item as adequate or better; Lynn, 1985) were retained.”
Applying a Score Confidence Interval to Aiken's Item Content-Relevance Index (2004, background): “The use of seven judges is typical of content-relevance studies (Haynes et al., 1995; Lynn, 1986).”
A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. (2007, methodology): “Two Methods of Calculating the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the Content Validity Index (CVI) Author Lawshe (1975) Lynn (1986) Rating scale Scale used for rating items: Scale used for rating items: 0 1 3 1 2 3 4 Not necessary Useful Essential Irrelevant Extremely relevant Calculations To…”
Evidencias sobre la validez de contenido: avances teóricos y métodos para su estimación (2013, background): “…un lado, es posible interpretarlo bien a nivel de significación estadística, teniendo que ser el IVC superior a una probabilidad asociada de 0.05 (Lynn, 1986) o bien, como propone Davis (1992), interpretando directamente el índice obtenido y teniendo que ser superior a 0,80 para definir el…”
Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model to understand students’ use of e-learning during Covid-19: Indonesian sport science education context (2020, unknown): “The indictors were then discussed with three experts of educational technology from Malaysia and Indonesia through video conferences as part of content validity to make the instrument suit the context and setting of the study (Lynn 1986).”
Expert Evaluation of Diagnostic Instrument for Personal and Organizational Value Congruence (2016, background): “Lynn (1986) advocated a two-stage process for estimating content validity in new instruments, on the basis of which a new instrument was constructed.”