Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.

By D. Polit, Cheryl Tatano Beck, S. Owen. Research in Nursing and Health, 2007

4,703 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. (2019, background): “Polit, Beck, and Owen [49] recommended having 8 to 12 experts for the first round.”
Non-linear relationship between industrial service offering and sales growth: The moderating role of network capabilities (2013, methodology): “We evaluated the validity of the construct using the content validity index (average I-CVI), with all dimensions topping the threshold of .8 (Davis, 1992; Polit et al., 2007).”
Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective (2012, background): “The debate on the calculations that should be performed is still open (Beckstead, 2009; Landsheer and Boeije, 2010) and there are multiple approaches to the subject (Polit, Beck, and Owen, 2007; Wynd et al., 2003).”
Teaching Subtraction and Multiplication with Regrouping Using the Concrete–Representational–Abstract Sequence and Strategic Instruction Model (2014, background): “According to Polit, Beck, and Owen (2007), item-level content validity index scores of 0.78 or higher for three or more experts are considered to be evidence of acceptable content validity.”