Content-based validity can be defined as the evidence of the degree to which the items of an instrument represent the construct to be inferred. It is the initial and unavoidable step for evaluating other sources of validity. However, it is one of the least reported psychometric properties in development of health measurement scales. That is why it is considered a challenge that must be overcome with the recognition of its value. In this narrative review, the concept of content as evidence of validity is revised and methods for evaluation are synthesized with an algorithm.
Abbass EllithyM (2017) Expected prescription error (EPE) scores of cancer drugs in Egypt: A new method of data extraction from a questionnaire based study. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management5(12): 7630–7635.
2.
AlmanasrehEMolesRChenTF (2019) Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy15(2): 214–221.
3.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014) Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4.
BerkRA (1990) Importance of expert judgment in content-related validity evidence. Western Journal of Nursing Research12(5): 659–671.
5.
BillardTJ (2018) The crisis in content validity among existing measures of transphobia. Archives of Sexual Behavior47(5): 1305–1306.
6.
BlairJ yConradFG (2011) Sample size for cognitive interview pretesting. Public Opinion Quarterly75(4): 636–658.
7.
BlairJAckermannAPiccininoL, et al. (2007) Using behavior coding to validate cognitive interview findings. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association: Section on Survey Research Methods, Salt Lake City, UT, 2007, pp. 3896–3900.
8.
BradburnN (2004) Understanding the question-answer process. Survey Methodology30(1): 5–15.
9.
BrodMTeslerLEChristensenTL (2009) Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research18(9): 1263–1278.
10.
Carrillo-AvalosBASánchez MendiolaMLeenenI (2020) El concepto moderno de validez y su uso en educación médica. Investigación en Educación Médica (33): 98–106.
11.
CharterRA (2003) A breakdown of reliability coefficients by test type and reliability method, and the clinical implications of low reliability. The Journal of General Psychology130(3): 290–304.
12.
ChiarottoAOsteloRWBoersM, et al. (2018) A systematic review highlights the need to investigate the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning in patients with low back pain. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology95: 73–93.
13.
CohenJ (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement20(1): 37–46.
14.
DavisLL (1992) Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research5(4): 194–197.
15.
Delgado-RicoECarretero-DiosHRuchW (2012) Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology12(3): 449–460.
16.
Dominguez-LaraSARodríguez GarcíaPL (2016) Validez de contenido usando la V de Aiken con intervalos de confianza: aportes a Rodríguez et al. Arch Argent Pediatr114(3): e221–e223.
17.
EmbretsonS yGorinJ (2001) Improving construct validity with cognitive psychology principles. Journal of Educational Measurement38(4): 343–368.
18.
GilbertGEPrionS (2016) Making sense of methods and measurement: Lawshe’s content validity index. Clinical Simulation in Nursing12(12): 530–531.
19.
GrantJSDavisLL (1997) Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health20(3): 269–74.
20.
GuionRM (1977) Content validity—the source of my discontent. Applied Psychological Measurement1(1): 1–10.
21.
JohnstonMDixonDHartJ, et al. (2014) Discriminant content validity: A quantitative methodology for assessing content of theory-based measures, with illustrative applications. British Journal of Health Psychology19(2): 240–257.
KearneyMH (2016) Under-appreciated steps in instrument development, part i: starting with validity. Research in Nursing & Health39(2): 81–83.
24.
KellenD (2019) A model hierarchy for psychological science. Computational Brain & Behavior2(3–4): 160–165.
25.
LawsheCH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology28(4): 563–575.
26.
LeidyNKVernonM (2008) Perspectives on patient-reported outcomes. PharmacoEconomics26(5): 363–370.
27.
LennonRT (1956) Assumptions underlying the use of content validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement16(3): 294–304.
28.
MariL (2003) Epistemology of measurement. Measurement34(1): 17–30.
29.
MastagliaBToyeCKristjansonLJ (2003) Ensuring content validity in instrument development: Challenges and innovative approaches. Contemporary Nurse14(3): 281–291.
30.
MaulA (2017) Rethinking traditional methods of survey validation. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives15(2): 51–69.
31.
McGrathRE (2005) Conceptual complexity and construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment85(2): 112–124.
32.
McHughML (2012) Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia medica22(3): 276–282.
33.
MessickS (1989) Meaning and values in test validation: the science and ethics of assessment. Educational Researcher18(2): 5–11.
34.
NabLGroenwoldRHHWelsingPMJ, et al. (2019) Measurement error in continuous endpoints in randomised trials: Problems and solutions. Statistics in Medicine38(27): 5182–5196.
35.
PatrickDLBurkeLBGwaltneyCJ, et al. (2011a) Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1—eliciting concepts for a New PRO instrument. Value in Health14(8): 967–977.
36.
PatrickDLBurkeLBGwaltneyCJ, et al. (2011b) Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value in Health14(8): 978–988.
37.
PeetersMJHarpeSE (2019) Updating conceptions of validity and reliability. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. Epub ahead of print 30November2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.11.017.
38.
PenfieldRDGiacobbi, Jr.PR (2004) Applying a score confidence interval to Aiken’s item content-relevance index. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science8(4): 213–225.
39.
PetersonCHPetersonNAPowellKG (2017) Cognitive interviewing for item development: Validity evidence based on content and response processes. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development50(4): 217–223.
40.
PolitDFBeckCT (2006) The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health29(5): 489–497.
41.
PolitDFBeckCTOwenS V (2007) Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health30(4): 459–467.
42.
PophamWJ (2006) Instruction that measures up : successful teaching in the age of accountability. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
43.
PopperMPetrjánošováM (2016) Do we know what we are asking? Individual and group cognitive interviews. Human Affairs26(3).
44.
PrinsenCACMokkinkLBBouterLM, et al. (2018) COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research27(5): 1147–1157.
45.
RicciLLanfranchiJ-BLemetayerF, et al. (2019) Qualitative methods used to generate questionnaire items: A systematic review. Qualitative Health Research29(1): 149–156.
46.
RileyWTRothrockNBruceB, et al. (2010) Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domain names and definitions revisions: further evaluation of content validity in IRT-derived item banks. Quality of Life Research19(9): 1311–1321.
47.
Robles PastorBF (2018) Índice de validez de contenido: Coeficiente V de Aiken. Pueblo Continente29(193–97).
48.
RodriguesIBAdachiJDBeattieKA, et al. (2017) Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders18(1): 540.
49.
RoyalK (2017) Four tenets of modern validity theory for medical education assessment and evaluation. Advances in Medical Education and Practice8: 567–570.
50.
SireciS yFaulkner-BondM (2014) Validity evidence based on test content. Psicothema26(1): 100–107.
51.
SireciSG (1998) The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research45(1/3): 83–117.
TerweeCBPrinsenCACChiarottoA, et al. (2018) COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research27(5): 1159–1170.
54.
Ventura-LeónJL (2016) Breve historia del concepto validez en psicometría. Rev Per Histo Psicol2: 89–92.
55.
VieraAJGarrettJM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family medicine37(5): 360–363.
56.
WangW-CChenH-FJinK-Y (2015) Item response theory models for wording effects in mixed-format scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement75(1): 157–178.
57.
WellerSCVickersBBernardHR, et al. (2018) Open-ended interview questions and saturation. PLoS One13(6): e0198606.
58.
WyndCASchmidtBSchaeferMA (2003) Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research25(5): 508–518.
59.
YusoffMSB (2019) ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Education in Medicine Journal11(2): 49–54.
