Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40406198›Full record

ArticleAfrican journal of psychological assessment2023

The development of the Conceptual Construct Validity Appraisal Checklist.

Mario R Smith, Erica Munnik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in African journal of psychological assessment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mario R SmithDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0281-8290
Erica MunnikDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7940-9439

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The validation of instruments is integral to sound psychometric assessment practices. Construct validity, as the apex indicator, is established largely based on data-reduction techniques. This bias overlooks the importance of expert-based content validity and alternate approaches to construct validity. The construct definition, object classification, attribute classification, rater identification, scale formation, and enumeration and reporting (C-OAR-SE) framework provides an alternative to traditional approaches to construct validation. However, the theory lacks articulation into an appraisal instrument that can form an integral part of the methodology used for validation studies. There is a need to focus on the conceptual clarity of constructs and its subsequent impact on operationalisation as a prerequisite to data reduction. This study reports on the development of the Conceptual Construct Validity Appraisal Checklist (CCVAC), based on the C-OAR-SE framework. The CCVAC assesses conceptual construct validity as the logical underpinning of instruments. The CCVAC has three sections, assessing theoretical definitions, operational definitions and scoring, respectively. The measure produces subsection and section scores and a global interpretation matrix. The construction followed a rigorous five-step process. The CCVAC was piloted on the Emotional Social Screening Tool for School Readiness (E3SR). The CCVAC performed well and appears non-sensitive to theoretical frameworks. The E3SR achieved a moderate level of construct validity as estimated by the CCVAC. The kappa statistic (0.55) indicated a moderate inter-rater agreement. All ethics principles were adhered to. Contribution: The CCVAC is theoretically grounded and provides a quantifiable methodology to objectively assess conceptual construct validity. The CCVAC makes the methodology underpinning construction explicit and produces quantifiable outcomes.

Indexed as

conceptual definitionconstruct validitymeasurementoperational definitionscale development

Identifiers

PMID40406198
PMCPMC12082252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.