Two Quantitative Approaches for Estimating Content Validity

By C. Wynd, Bruce Schmidt, Michelle Atkins Schaefer. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 2003

769 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.

The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. (2006, methodology): “…ratings of item relevance and using a pre-established criterion of acceptability (e.g., Beck & Gable, 2001); using coefficient alpha to quantify agreement of item relevance by three or more experts (Waltz et al., 2005, p. 157); and computing a multirater kappa coefficient (Wynd et al., 2003).”
Expert Evaluation of Diagnostic Instrument for Personal and Organizational Value Congruence (2016, background): “Wynd et al. (2003) argued that content validity is an essential step in the development of new empirical measuring devices because it represents a beginning mechanism for linking abstract concepts with observable and measurable indicators.”
Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. (2007, methodology): “For example, Wynd, Schmidt, and Schaefer (2003) used both the CVI and a multi-rater kappa coefficient in the content validation of their Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tool.”
Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. (2011, background): “It is also recommended that the kappa coefficient of agreement be determined to increase confidence in the content validity of the instrument [23].”