Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Construct of Content Validity

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many behavioral scientists argue that assessments used in social indicators research must be content-valid. However, the concept of content validity has been controversial since its inception. The current unitary conceptualization of validity argues against use of the term content validity, but stresses the importance of content representation in the instrument construction and evaluation processes. However, by arguing against use of this term, the importance of demonstrating content representativeness has been severely undermined. This paper reviews the history of content validity theory to underscore its importance in evaluating construct validity. It is concluded that although measures cannot be “validated” based on content validity evidence alone, demonstration of content validity is a fundamental requirement of all assessment instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Aiken, L. R.: 1980, ‘Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 40, pp. 955–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association, Committee on Test Standards: 1952, ‘Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques: A preliminary proposal’, American Psychologist 7, pp. 461–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association: 1954, ‘Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques’ (Author, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association: 1966, Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals (Author, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education: 1974, Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education: 1985, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anastasi, A.: 1954, Psychological Testing (MacMillan, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anastasi, A.: 1986, ‘Evolving concepts of test validation’, Annual Review of Psychology 37, pp. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angoff, W. H.: 1988, ‘Validity: An evolving concept’, in H. Wainer and H. I. Braun (eds.), Test Validity (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey), pp. 19–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, W. V.: 1937, Aptitudes and Aptitude Testing (Harper, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Colton, D. A.: 1993, ‘A multivariate generalizability analysis of the 1989 and 1990 AAP Mathematics test forms with respect to the table of specifications’, ACT Research Report Series: 93–6 (American College Testing Program, Iowa City).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L. M., D. Miller and E. A. Franks: 1989, ‘Quantitative methods for assessing the fit between test and curriculum’, Applied Measurement in Education 2, pp. 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J.: 1971, ‘Test validation’, in R. L. Thorndike (ed.), Educational Measurement, 2nd ed. (American Council on Education, Washington, DC), pp. 443–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J.: 1988, ‘Five perspectives on the validity argument’, in H. Wainer and H. I. Braun (eds.), Test Validity (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey), pp. 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. and P. E. Meehl: 1955, ‘Construct validity in psychological tests’, Psychological Bulletin 52, pp. 281–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cureton, E. E.: 1951, ‘Validity’, in E. F. Lindquist (ed.), Educational Measurement, 1st ed. (American Council on Education, Washington, DC), pp. 621–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, M. L.: 1985, ‘Multidimensional scaling versus components analysis of test intercorrelations’, Psychological Bulletin 97, pp. 94–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deville, C. W.: 1996, ‘An empirical link of content and construct equivalence’, Applied Psychological Measurement 20, pp. 127–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorans, N. J. and I. M. Lawrence: 1987, ‘The internal construct validity of the SAT’ (Research Report) (Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L.: 1956, ‘Obtaining and reporting evidence for content validity’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 16, pp. 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L.: 1961, ‘Must all tests be valid?’ American Psychologist 16, pp. 640–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebel, R. L.: 1977, ‘Comments on some problems of employment testing’, Personnel Psychology 30, pp. 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embretson (Whitley), S.: 1983, ‘Construct validity: construct representation versus nomothetic span’, Psychological Bulletin 93, pp. 179–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, A. R.: 1983, ‘The meaning of content validity’, Applied Psychological Measurement 7, pp. 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisinger, K. F.: 1992, ‘The metamorphosis in test validity’, Educational Psychologist 27, pp. 197–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodenough, F. L.: 1949, Mental Testing (Rinehart, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. B.: 1983, ‘Identifiability of spurious factors with linear factor analysis with binary items’, Applied Psychological Measurement 7, pp. 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P.: 1946, ‘New standards for test evaluation’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 6, pp. 427–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guion, R. M.: 1977, ‘Content validity: The source of my discontent’, Applied Psychological Measurement 1, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guion, R. M.: 1978, ‘Scoring of content domain samples: the problem of fairness’, Journal of Applied Psychology 63, pp. 499–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guion, R. M.: 1980, ‘On trinitarian doctrines of validity’, Professional Psychology 11, pp. 385–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulliksen, H.: 1950a, ‘Intrinsic validity’, American Psychologist 5, pp. 511–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulliksen, H.: 1950b, Theory of Mental Tests (Wiley, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K.: 1980, ‘Test score validity and standard setting methods’, in R. A. Berk (ed.), Criterion-Referenced Measurement: The State of the Art (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K.: 1984, ‘Validating the test score’, in R. A. Berk (ed.), A Guide to Criterion-Referenced Test Construction (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore), pp. 199–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubley, A. M. and B. D. Zumbo: 1996, ‘A dialectic on validity: Where we have been and where we are going’, The Journal of General Psychology 123, pp. 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N.: 1976, Jackson Personality Inventory: Manual (Research Psychologists Press, Port Huron, MI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D. N.: 1984, Personality Research Form: Manual (Research Psychologists Press, Port Huron, MI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarjoura, D. and R. L. Brennan: 1982, ‘A variance components model for measurement procedures associated with a table of specifications’, Applied Psychological Measurement 6, pp. 161–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins J. G.: 1946, ‘Validity for what?’ Journal of Consulting Psychology 10, pp. 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. T.: 1992, ‘An argument-based approach to validity’, Psychological Bulletin 112, pp. 527–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. L.: 1927, Interpretation of Educational Measurement (World Book Co., Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • LaDuca, A.: 1994, ‘Validation of professional licensure examinations’, Evaluation & the Health Professions 17, pp. 178–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawshe, C. H.: 1975, ‘A quantitative approach to content validity’, Personnel Psychology 28, pp. 563–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, R. T.: 1956, ‘Assumptions underlying the use of content validity’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 16, pp. 294–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, E. F. (Ed.): 1951, Educational Measurement (American Council on Education, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, R. L.: 1994, ‘Criterion-referenced measurement: A valuable perspective clouded by surplus meaning’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 13, pp. 12–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loevinger, J.: 1957, ‘Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory’, Psychological Reports 3, pp. 635–694 (Monograph Supplement 9).

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S.: 1975, ‘The standard problem: meaning and values in measurement and evaluation’, American Psychologist 30, pp. 955–966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S.: 1980, ‘Test validity and the ethics of assessment’, American Psychologist 35, pp. 1012–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S.: 1988, ‘The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement’, in H. Wainer and H. I. Braun (eds.), Test Validity (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey), pp. 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S.: 1989a, ‘Meaning and values in test validation: the science and ethics of assessment’, Educational Researcher 18, pp. 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S.: 1989b, ‘Validity’, in R. Linn (ed.), Educational Measurement, 3rd ed. (American Council on Education, Washington, DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, L. L. and C. T. Fitz-Gibbon: 1978, How to Measure Achievement (Sage, Beverly Hills).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosier, C. I.: 1947, ‘A critical examination of the concepts of face validity’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 7, pp. 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napior, D.: 1972, ‘Nonmetric multidimensional techniques for summated ratings’, in R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney and S. B. Nerlove (eds.), Multidimensional Scaling: Volume 1: Theory (Seminar Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C.: 1967, Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oltman, P. K., L. J. Stricker and T. S. Barrows: 1990, ‘Analyzing test structure by multidimensional scaling’, Journal of Applied Psychology 75, pp. 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterlind, S. J.: 1989, Constructing Test Items (Kluwer, Hingham, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J.: 1992, ‘Appropriate expectations for content judgments regarding teacher licensure tests’, Applied Measurement in Education 5, pp. 285–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J.: 1994, ‘The instructional consequences of criterion-referenced clarity’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 13, pp. 15–20, 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham. W. J.: 1995, April, Postcursive Review of Criterion-Referenced Test Items Based on “Soft” Item Specifications. A symposium paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco.

  • Raymond, M. R.: 1989, ‘Applications of multidimensional scaling research in the health professions’, Evaluation & the Health Professions 12, pp. 379–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, M. R.: 1994, April, Equivalence of Weights for Test Specifications Obtained Using Empirical and Judgmental Procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.

  • Rulon, P. J.: 1946, ‘On the validity of educational tests’, Harvard Educational Review 16, pp. 290–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, L., M. Raymond and A. S. White: 1992, ‘A comparison of two methods for structuring performance domains’, Applied Measurement in Education 5, pp. 321–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., X. Gao and G. P. Baxter: 1995, ‘On the content validity of performance assessments: Centrality of domain specification’, in M. Birenbaum, and F. Douchy (eds.), Alternatives in Assessment of Achievements, Learning Process, and Prior Knowledge (Kluwer Academic, Boston), pp. 131–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A.: 1993, ‘Evaluating test validity’, Review of Research in Education 19, pp. 405–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A.: 1996, ‘The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 16, pp. 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sireci, S. G. and K. F. Geisinger: 1992, ‘Analyzing test content using cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling’, Applied Psychological Measurement 16, pp. 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sireci, S. G. and K. F. Geisinger: 1995, ‘Using subject matter experts to assess content representation: A MDS analysis’, Applied Psychological Measurement 19, pp. 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, I. L., R. K. Hambleton and G. A. Rosen: 1988, April, Content Validity Studies of the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.

  • Tenopyr, M. L.: 1977, ‘Content-construct confusion’, Personnel Psychology 30, pp. 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, E. L.: 1931, Measurement of Intelligence (Bureau of Publishers, Columbia University, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, R. L.: 1949, Personnel Selection: Test and Measurement Techniques (Wiley, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.): 1971, Educational Measurement, 2nd ed. (American Council on Education, Washington. DC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L.: 1932, The Reliability and Validity of Tests (Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, Michigan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Toops, H. A.: 1944, ‘The criterion’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 4, pp. 271–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R.: 1961, Factor Analysis of Relevance Judgments: An Approach to Content Validity. Paper presented at the Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, Princeton, NJ (reprinted in A. Anastasi (ed.), Testing Problems in Perspective (1966), (American Council on Education, Washington, DC), pp. 577–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalow, E. S. and W. J. Popham: 1983, ‘Content validity at the crossroads’, Educational Researcher 12, pp. 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts – Amherst, 156 Hills House South, Box 34140, Amherst, MA01003-4140, USA

    Stephen G. Sireci

Authors
  1. Stephen G. Sireci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sireci, S.G. The Construct of Content Validity. Social Indicators Research 45, 83–117 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006985528729

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006985528729

Keywords

Search

Navigation