Validity is a measuring parameter that focuses on determining whether a particular action achieves the established objective. Therefore, it plays a vital role in the establishment of the quality of a study. An excellent example of a study involves assessing the reliability of non-technical skills of surgeons in service delivery. The dynamic validity test asserts the attainment of the objective mainly because of the measure of the relationship (Yule et al., 2018). Validity comprises of different approaches, primarily construct and criterion. Construct validity is the measuring parameter that indicates the relativity between the results and the study’s objectives. On the other hand, the criterion validity focuses on the marginal relativity between the results and other peer-related study results. The main advantage of construct validity enshrines providing an insight into the attainment of key study objectives. However, the advantage of the criterion validity is in enhancing the alignment of all studies with a minimal degree of variations from the peer study results. Construct and Criterion validity are related mainly because both entities are measuring parameters and utilize similar tools of analysis.
The criterion validity is an approach that poses a limitation despite the provision of significance from other studies. The critical disadvantage of the criterion validity enshrines the confinement of a study’s relevance to other researches. In this case, previous works become a benchmark and enhance the limitation to the dynamic insight of the current study. Construct validity further poses a limitation based on the dynamic essence of determining the quality of the set objectives. Therefore, the results of the study should be confined within the limits of the objectives than an exploratory ideology. The vital question that enhances the measure of construct validity is “Does the validity test measure the ideology that it is intended to measure?”. The question that fosters the measure of the criterion validity is “Do the results correspond with the results from other peer-related studies about the same concept?”.
Reference
Yule, S., Gupta, A., Gazarian, D., Geraghty, A., Smink, D. S., Beard, J., Sundt, T., Youngson, G., Mclhenry, C., & Paterson-Brown, S. (2018). Construct and criterion validity testing of the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) behavior assessment tool using videos of simulated operations. Journal of British Surgery, 105(6), 719-727. Web.