Home  About us  Contact
 

Validity Problems (validity + problem)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences75%

Selected Abstracts

Democrats with adjectives: Linking direct and indirect measures of democratic support

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL RESEARCH, Issue 5 2007
ANDREAS SCHEDLER
Since people may entertain competing democratic ideas and ideals, however, the academic community ignores the extent to which standard questions capture citizen support for liberal democracy. To solve the validity problems associated with direct measures of democratic support, this article proposes linking them to more concrete, indirect measures of support for democratic principles and institutions. It employs the statistical technique of cluster analysis to establish this linkage. Cluster analysis permits grouping respondents in a way that is open to complex and inconsistent attitudinal profiles. It permits the identification of ,democrats with adjectives' who support democracy in the abstract, while rejecting core principles of liberal democracy. The article demonstrates the fruitfulness of this approach by drawing a map of ,illiberal democrats' in Mexico on the basis of the country's 2003 National Survey on Political Culture. [source]

A Multimethod Multitrait Validity Assessment of Self-Construal in Japan, Korea, and the United States

HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, Issue 1 2005
Mary J. Bresnahan
A large number of previous studies have used self-construal to predict communication outcomes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that validity problems may exist in self-construal measurement. The current study conducted a multimethod multitrait (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) validation study of self-construal measures with data (total N= 578) collected in Korea (N= 200), Japan (N= 212), and the U.S. (N= 166). The data showed that the Singelis (1994) Self-Construal Scale, the Cross, Bacon, and Morris (2000) Relational Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (RISC), and the Kuhn and McPartland (1954) Twenty Statements Test (TST) lacked convergent and discriminant validity, both pan-culturally and within each of the three countries included in the study. Scores on the TST were not significantly related to scores on the self-construal scales, and the various self-construal measures correlated more highly with measures of communication directness than with alternative measures of the same type of self-construal. Substantial method effects were also observed. The results were tested for both 2- and 3-dimensional models of self-construal and for refined scales and scales with all items retained. The results of all analyses were inconsistent with the claim that self-construal measures are construct valid. [source]

Self-Construal Scales Lack Validity

HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH, Issue 2 2003
Timothy R. Levine
Self-construal is thought to mediate and explain the effects of culture on a wide variety of outcome variables. A meta-analysis of published cross-cultural self-construal research is reported in this article, and the results across studies suggests that the evidence for the predicted cultural differences is weak, inconsistent, or nonexistent. The results of 3 priming experiments (N = 121, N = 99, and N = 361) suggest that (a) priming does not account for the inconsistent results observed in the meta-analysis, (b) that scores on a self-construal scale appear to be measuring trait-like constructs that are not sensitive to priming, and (c) that measures of self-construals lack convergent validity. The results of several measurement studies (N = 121, 223, 230, 323, 214, 206, 126, 204, 148, 141, and 150) were inconsistent with the a priori two-factor measurement model in every case. Self-construal scales were found to be radically multidimensional and highly unstable within and across cultures. These results lead us to conclude that catastrophic validity problems exist in research involving the use of self-construal scales in cross-cultural research. [source]

The Reliability and Validity of Birth Certificates

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRIC, GYNECOLOGIC & NEONATAL NURSING, Issue 1 2006
Sally Northam
Objectives:, To summarize the reliability and validity of birth certificate variables and encourage nurses to spearhead data improvement. Data sources:, A Medline key word search of reliability and validity of birth certificate, and a reference review of more than 60 articles were done. Study selection:, Twenty-four primary research studies of U.S. birth certificates that involved validity or reliability assessment. Data extraction:, Studies were reviewed, critiqued, and organized as either a reliability or a validity study and then grouped by birth certificate variable. Data synthesis:, The reliability and validity of birth certificate data vary considerably by item. Insurance, birthweight, Apgar score, and delivery method are more reliable than prenatal visits, care, and maternal complications. Tobacco and alcohol use, obstetric procedures, and delivery events are unreliable. Birth certificates are not valid sources of information on tobacco and alcohol use, prenatal care, maternal risk, pregnancy complications, labor, and delivery. Conclusions:, Birth certificates are a key data source for identifying causes of increasing U.S. infant mortality but have serious reliability and validity problems. Nurses are with mothers and infants at birth, so they are in a unique position to improve data quality and spread the word about the importance of reliable and valid data. Recommendations to improve data are presented. JOGNN, 35, 3-12; 2006. DOI: 10.1111/J.1552-6909.2006.00016.x [source]