MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validity

2014· book· en· W4240308469 on OpenAlexaff
David L. Streiner, Geoffrey R. Norman, John Cairney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct validityExternal validityCriterion validityConcurrent validityPsychologyIncremental validityScale (ratio)ValidityConstruct (python library)Predictive validityTest validityTest (biology)Internal validityFace validitySample (material)Content validityCognitive psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceMathematicsPsychometricsStatisticsDevelopmental psychologyGeographyCartographyInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In order for a scale to be useful, the user must be able to draw accurate conclusions about the presence or absence of the attribute being measured. This is the domain of validity. What validity is and how it is assessed has changed greatly over the past 40 years, although many who develop or validate scales are unaware of this. This chapter discusses what is meant by validity and how it is assessed. The major points are that: (1) validity is not a property of the test, but may change depending on the sample and the conditions under which the test is given, and (2) there are not different ‘types’ of validity—they are all various aspects of construct validity. The chapter also describes different types of studies that can establish construct validity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.165
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.165
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.022

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.820
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207