This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Validity (statistics) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an artical putatively about validity the statistical concept. Why does the first sentence limit the discussion to the domain of psychology? If there are distinct validity concerns in the realm of psychology, shouldn't that be dealt with in a subsection? The overall article should presumably be as domain independent as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.82.175 ( talk) 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Anon 142.103.116.65 left the following note in the article space for Criterion validity, red-linked from this article. Since the note is more appropriate for a talk page, and that article doesn't exist yet, I'm moving the note here before deleting the article.
End copied text. SWAdair | Talk 07:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know "A test can be reliable, but not valid" is the right definition or description. Imagine a clock shows every day 3.00pm, it is everyday the same, therefore it is reliable. However, if you try to measure your weight with a clock, you have a reliable measurement without validity.
The graphic illustrating the relationship between validity and reliability is incorrectly labeled. It is actually showing the relationship between precision and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.191.151 ( talk) 22:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The article states that A valid measure must be reliable, but a reliable measure need not be valid. , but Earl Babbie's 'The Practice of Social Research', 10th edition, p.145 has a graph that implies that a valid measure does not have to be reliable. Can anybody elaborate on this? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Reliability and validity are related but independent. They are analogous to the engineering terms precision and accuracy respectively. An analog wristwatch that does not work is accurate (valid) twice a day to as many decimal places as you can measure. But it lacks precision (reliability). A watch than is always 10 minutes fast is never accurate but is very precise. These terms are well defined and accepted in engineering.
The problem comes in when mapping these concepts into social science because the terms acquire linguistic uncertainty from colloquial usage. In every day usage for example, a reliable person is always on time. Using the scientific definition of reliability, a person that is always 10 minutes late is also reliable.
Statistical validity requires statistical reliability, but not the the other way around. It could be argued conceptually that "face validity" shares the most in common with statistical reliability. Statistical validity is established by providing multiple examples of evidence over time, and through independent and interdependent research studies. An acceptable level of statistical reliability has to be estability in at least one study (even a pilot study) before evidence of statistical validity(s) can be established. In general examples of the different types of evidence for statistical validity(s) necessarily follow on from previous evidence (e.g. face then construct, concurrent, certain types of criterions and predictive validity(s)) There are also arguments and proofs for retrospective predictive validity (I.e. the capacity for a test to predict a diagnosis in the past) but these a more interesting in medicine than the social sciences. Tests of specificity and sesnsitivity are also reliant (at least in theory) on the amount and type of evidence established for statistical validity(s) Sensitivity and specificity study is more prevalent in medicine than psychology and the social sciences. Keeping this in mind might be helpful in determining the scope (scholarly disciple) of this article and what is better left to a different but related article e.g. Statistical validity in medicine, psychology, business, economics etc Dr.khatmando ( talk) 05:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I. Validity A. Internal B. External C. Statistical Conclusion D. Construct i. Intentional ii. Representation a. Face b. Content iii. Observation a. Predictive b. Criterion c. Concurrent d. Convergent
The article confuses two main objects of validity, namely (1) a test, and (2) a (quasi)experiment. In case (1) validity is about the psychometric properties of the test, and for this case de APA Standards apply. In case (2) validity is about the validity of the causal inferences, and there the Cook & Campbell terminology applies. These are entirely different concepts of validity, and by mixing them into one list the accuracy of the article is compromised. Within the psychometric validity family the main concepts are Content, Criterion and Construct validity. Within the causal validity family, the main concepts are Statistical, Internal, Construct and External. What contributes to the confusion is that both families contain the concept Construct validity. However, these are actually two different concepts of construct validity. E.g. if you construct a test and uses this in an experiment, then an expert analysis of the test items contents contributed to the Content validity of the test, which in turn contributes to the Construct validity of the experiment. The expert analysis does not contribute to the Construct validity of the test, however. JulesEllis ( talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So I commented almost a year ago and I haven't made any changes. I'm looking at this article wondering why it's even here. I'm no deletionist, but there are already articles on validity in research design and now there is one on test validity, plus articles on all the little test "validities". So why do we have this one here? Jmbrowne ( talk) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Why no reference to incremental validity? And why no page for incremental validity? Can someone come to the rescue?? -- 1000Faces ( talk) 02:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a little vandalism going on in the first line there...someone who knows what they're doing ought to take care of that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.120.193 ( talk) 00:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The lede contains the sentences:
"The use of the term in logic is narrower, relating to the truth of inferences made from premises. In logic, and therefore as the term is applied to any epistemological claim, validity refers to the consistency of an argument flowing from the premises to the conclusion; as such, the truth of the claim in logic is not only reliant on validity. Rather, an argumentative claim is true if and only if it is both valid and sound."
This is more or less completely wrong. I propose to replace them with:
"The use of the term in logic is narrower, relating to the relationship between the premises and conclusion of an argument. In logic, validity refers to the property of an argument whereby if the premises are true then the truth of the conclusion follows by necessity. The conclusion of an argument is true if the argument is sound, which is to say that the argument is valid and its premises are true." Dezaxa ( talk) 04:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Validity (statistics) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an artical putatively about validity the statistical concept. Why does the first sentence limit the discussion to the domain of psychology? If there are distinct validity concerns in the realm of psychology, shouldn't that be dealt with in a subsection? The overall article should presumably be as domain independent as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.82.175 ( talk) 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Anon 142.103.116.65 left the following note in the article space for Criterion validity, red-linked from this article. Since the note is more appropriate for a talk page, and that article doesn't exist yet, I'm moving the note here before deleting the article.
End copied text. SWAdair | Talk 07:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know "A test can be reliable, but not valid" is the right definition or description. Imagine a clock shows every day 3.00pm, it is everyday the same, therefore it is reliable. However, if you try to measure your weight with a clock, you have a reliable measurement without validity.
The graphic illustrating the relationship between validity and reliability is incorrectly labeled. It is actually showing the relationship between precision and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.191.151 ( talk) 22:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The article states that A valid measure must be reliable, but a reliable measure need not be valid. , but Earl Babbie's 'The Practice of Social Research', 10th edition, p.145 has a graph that implies that a valid measure does not have to be reliable. Can anybody elaborate on this? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Reliability and validity are related but independent. They are analogous to the engineering terms precision and accuracy respectively. An analog wristwatch that does not work is accurate (valid) twice a day to as many decimal places as you can measure. But it lacks precision (reliability). A watch than is always 10 minutes fast is never accurate but is very precise. These terms are well defined and accepted in engineering.
The problem comes in when mapping these concepts into social science because the terms acquire linguistic uncertainty from colloquial usage. In every day usage for example, a reliable person is always on time. Using the scientific definition of reliability, a person that is always 10 minutes late is also reliable.
Statistical validity requires statistical reliability, but not the the other way around. It could be argued conceptually that "face validity" shares the most in common with statistical reliability. Statistical validity is established by providing multiple examples of evidence over time, and through independent and interdependent research studies. An acceptable level of statistical reliability has to be estability in at least one study (even a pilot study) before evidence of statistical validity(s) can be established. In general examples of the different types of evidence for statistical validity(s) necessarily follow on from previous evidence (e.g. face then construct, concurrent, certain types of criterions and predictive validity(s)) There are also arguments and proofs for retrospective predictive validity (I.e. the capacity for a test to predict a diagnosis in the past) but these a more interesting in medicine than the social sciences. Tests of specificity and sesnsitivity are also reliant (at least in theory) on the amount and type of evidence established for statistical validity(s) Sensitivity and specificity study is more prevalent in medicine than psychology and the social sciences. Keeping this in mind might be helpful in determining the scope (scholarly disciple) of this article and what is better left to a different but related article e.g. Statistical validity in medicine, psychology, business, economics etc Dr.khatmando ( talk) 05:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I. Validity A. Internal B. External C. Statistical Conclusion D. Construct i. Intentional ii. Representation a. Face b. Content iii. Observation a. Predictive b. Criterion c. Concurrent d. Convergent
The article confuses two main objects of validity, namely (1) a test, and (2) a (quasi)experiment. In case (1) validity is about the psychometric properties of the test, and for this case de APA Standards apply. In case (2) validity is about the validity of the causal inferences, and there the Cook & Campbell terminology applies. These are entirely different concepts of validity, and by mixing them into one list the accuracy of the article is compromised. Within the psychometric validity family the main concepts are Content, Criterion and Construct validity. Within the causal validity family, the main concepts are Statistical, Internal, Construct and External. What contributes to the confusion is that both families contain the concept Construct validity. However, these are actually two different concepts of construct validity. E.g. if you construct a test and uses this in an experiment, then an expert analysis of the test items contents contributed to the Content validity of the test, which in turn contributes to the Construct validity of the experiment. The expert analysis does not contribute to the Construct validity of the test, however. JulesEllis ( talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So I commented almost a year ago and I haven't made any changes. I'm looking at this article wondering why it's even here. I'm no deletionist, but there are already articles on validity in research design and now there is one on test validity, plus articles on all the little test "validities". So why do we have this one here? Jmbrowne ( talk) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Why no reference to incremental validity? And why no page for incremental validity? Can someone come to the rescue?? -- 1000Faces ( talk) 02:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a little vandalism going on in the first line there...someone who knows what they're doing ought to take care of that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.120.193 ( talk) 00:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The lede contains the sentences:
"The use of the term in logic is narrower, relating to the truth of inferences made from premises. In logic, and therefore as the term is applied to any epistemological claim, validity refers to the consistency of an argument flowing from the premises to the conclusion; as such, the truth of the claim in logic is not only reliant on validity. Rather, an argumentative claim is true if and only if it is both valid and sound."
This is more or less completely wrong. I propose to replace them with:
"The use of the term in logic is narrower, relating to the relationship between the premises and conclusion of an argument. In logic, validity refers to the property of an argument whereby if the premises are true then the truth of the conclusion follows by necessity. The conclusion of an argument is true if the argument is sound, which is to say that the argument is valid and its premises are true." Dezaxa ( talk) 04:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)