Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in determining the incomprehensible items by older people: Empirical evidence of testing 106 quality‐of‐life items

Sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in determining the... BACKGROUNDLiterature has raised up an issue about the value of face validation in the psychometric testing of instruments.1–3 Face validation is a controversial issue because researchers define it as pertaining to the superficial examination of an instrument, by checking the understandability of respondents and acceptability of both respondents and administrators by a yes or no response.1,4–6 Collectively, the meaningful argument has been more focused on the function than its power in psychometric validation. Several useful and unique functions, namely enhancing the motivation and cooperation of respondents, reducing dissatisfaction among stakeholders, and increasing the acceptability of the findings by policymakers, were frequently mentioned.7–11 However, the conventional testing approach has its shortcomings when applied to older people or people with low educational levels (e.g., child).12 Particularly, it is questionable whether the conventional face validation method can identify items that are difficult to comprehend by the target population.Face validity and conventional approach of conducting face validityTesting face validity refers to “whether the instrument looks like it is measuring the target construct.”13 Given that such property pertains to how the stakeholders of the instrument perceive it, face validity should be judged by them and not by experts in the field.14,15The mainstream school of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Aging Medicine Wiley

Sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in determining the incomprehensible items by older people: Empirical evidence of testing 106 quality‐of‐life items

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/sensitivity-and-specificity-of-conventional-and-new-face-validation-in-ysCazIXJEh

References (61)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Beijing Hospital
eISSN
2475-0360
DOI
10.1002/agm2.12254
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BACKGROUNDLiterature has raised up an issue about the value of face validation in the psychometric testing of instruments.1–3 Face validation is a controversial issue because researchers define it as pertaining to the superficial examination of an instrument, by checking the understandability of respondents and acceptability of both respondents and administrators by a yes or no response.1,4–6 Collectively, the meaningful argument has been more focused on the function than its power in psychometric validation. Several useful and unique functions, namely enhancing the motivation and cooperation of respondents, reducing dissatisfaction among stakeholders, and increasing the acceptability of the findings by policymakers, were frequently mentioned.7–11 However, the conventional testing approach has its shortcomings when applied to older people or people with low educational levels (e.g., child).12 Particularly, it is questionable whether the conventional face validation method can identify items that are difficult to comprehend by the target population.Face validity and conventional approach of conducting face validityTesting face validity refers to “whether the instrument looks like it is measuring the target construct.”13 Given that such property pertains to how the stakeholders of the instrument perceive it, face validity should be judged by them and not by experts in the field.14,15The mainstream school of

Journal

Aging Medicine – Wiley

Published: Sep 1, 2023

Keywords: empirical evidence; face validation; interpretability; older people; understandability

There are no references for this article.