Validity: Simultaneous Validity And Concept Validity

The concept of validity has developed over the years. Previously, experts believed that a test was valid for everything it was correlated with (2). As we have already seen in other articles, there are four types of validity: content validity, predictive validity, simultaneous validity and concept validity. In this article, we will take a closer look at simultaneous validity and concept validity.

Simultaneous validity

Simultaneous validity refers to whether a test result actually evaluates the test questions. To estimate this type of validity, the test creators administer the test and correlate it with criteria. The criteria are measuring instruments that the test creators have previously evaluated.

This type of validity is similar to predictive validity, but there are two main differences between these two validities (1):

• In simultaneous validity, the test creators receive the test measurements and criteria at the same time.
• The main purposes of predictive validity and simultaneous validity differ. At the same time, the main area of ​​validity of validity is to find tests that can replace the other procedures that are less suitable for various reasons. For example, a test for collective intelligence may be similar to a test for individual intelligence.

But the main problem with this type of validity is that it is difficult to find tests that can be used as valid and reliable criteria.

Concept validity

Concept  is a hypothetical concept that is part of the theories that try to explain human behavior. It can, for example, be about intelligence or creativity. This type of validity answers the question:  “How can the test results be explained psychologically?” The answer to this question can be seen as developing a “mini-theory” about the psychological test.

Therefore, concept validity consists of  obtaining evidence that supports whether the observed behaviors in the test are (some of) the indicators of the concept (1).

The concept validation process involves (1):

• The formulation of hypotheses and relationships between conceptual elements, other conceptual theories and other external concepts.
• Selection of points or tests (indicators) that represent concrete manifestations of the concept.
• Data gathering.
• The establishment of consistency between the data and the hypothesis. Then an examination of the level to which the data can be explained by alternative hypotheses.

The procedure for establishing concept validity

There are several procedures for establishing concept validity (1):

• Based on the theory held during the testing  , the psychologist can dismiss certain hypotheses  about the expected behavior of people who get different test results.
• Next, she collects  data that confirms or denies these hypotheses.

• With the data collected in mind  , she decides whether the theory explains the results satisfactorily. If not, she examines the theory and repeats the process until she gets a more accurate explanation.

In this respect, the validation process is a continuous reformulation and refinement. The truth is that the results of the study do not really “validate” or “prove” the whole theory. This is due to the fact that one can never fully demonstrate a “concept”.

All you can do is instead accept it as  the best definition you have to work with. There are three possible reasons why the results are negative (1, 3):

• First, the test may not really measure the “concept”. At least it does not measure what you want it to measure, even if it measures something.
• Furthermore  , the theoretical framework may not be correct. As a consequence, all conclusions will be incorrect.

• In conclusion  , the design of the experiment may not have enabled the correct testing of the hypothesis. Design errors are usually the easiest error to detect, but locating the error accurately is a more difficult task. Of course, the ambiguous interpretation of the negative results is a disadvantage of the concept validation procedure.

Simultaneous validity and concept validity give us information when it comes to validating a test. However, there are some aspects to keep in mind when validating.

Practical implications of validating tests

Psychologists who use tests should keep these implications in mind for the four types of validation:

• Before deciding on individuals or groups  , they must gather all available information about the test.
• In order to predict or select  , they must validate the test in the specific situation in which they will use it.
• In all situations, psychologists must keep in mind that  new information is constantly modifying theories about the nature of traits and everything they measure.

Validity helps us to analyze psychological tests. As you know  , the test is better the more valid it is  (without taking into account other variables). Unfortunately, this is not always the case in research, as there are other criteria that play a role, such as economic factors and accessibility factors.