The most often-used and practical approach to the content validation of occupational therapy assessments involves the use of content experts. Few procedures exist, however, to quantify these judgments. This article briefly reviews the literature on the examination of content validity through the use of expert judgment and describes a method for data collection and analysis with the index of item-objective congruence. This index permits the examination of content validity at the item, subtest, and test levels. Its strengths, as well as concerns regarding its use, are discussed.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
AnastasiA. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
3.
Apple Computer, Inc. (1986). A touch of Applesoft BASIC. Cupertino, CA: Author.
4.
BensonJ.ClarkF. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36, 789–800.
5.
BetzN. E.WeissD. J. (1976). Validity. In BoltonB. (Ed.), Handbook of measurement and evaluation in rehabilitation (pp. 39–60). Baltimore: University Park Press.
6.
BrownF. G. (1970). Principles of educational and psychological testing. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
7.
CohenJ. A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
8.
DeweyM. E. (1983). Coefficients of agreement. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 487–489.
9.
EbelR. L. (1967). Evaluating content validity. In PayneD. A.McMorrisR. F. (Eds.), Educational and psychological measurement: Contributions to theory and practice (pp. 85–94). Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
10.
FleissJ. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382.
11.
GayL. R. (1980). Educational evaluation and measurement: Competencies for analysis and application. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
12.
HambletonR. K.SwaminathanH.AlginaJ.CoulsonD. B. (1978). Criterion-referenced testing and measurement: A review of technical issues and developments. Review of Educational Research, 48(1), 1–47.
13.
HasselkusB. R.SafritM. J. (1976). Measurement in occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 30, 429–436.
14.
HemphillJ.WestieC. M. (1950). The measurement of group dimensions. Journal of Psychology, 29, 325–342.
15.
LawM. (1987). Measurement in occupational therapy: Scientific criteria for evaluation. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(3), 133–138.
16.
LightR. J. (1971). Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 365–377.
17.
LuK. H. (1971). A measure of agreement among subjective judgments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 75–84.
18.
McCallR. B. (1975). Fundamental statistics for psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
19.
McDermottP. A.WatkinsM. W. (1979). A program to evaluate general and conditional agreement among categorical assignments of many raters. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 11(3), 399–400.
20.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
OttenbacherK.PetersenP. (1985). Quantitative trends in occupational therapy research: Implications for practice and education. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 39, 240–246.
22.
RovinelliR. J.HambletonR. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal for Educational Research, 2, 49–60.
23.
WaltzC. F.StricklandO. L.LenzE. R. (1984). Measurement in nursing research. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
