So it's necessary to have both convergence, and divergence to establish, construct validity.

If a construct is, is truly valid and has strong, a lot of support for it, then it will demonstrate all of these different types of validity.

That gives you content validity. So that's real easy.

This test should be, correlated to a lesser degree with tests of spacial reasoning than it is, with a test of reading comprehension.

That's the inter item method and one of the most common ways we, we estimate reliability in psychology.

That way we've shown some, convergent validity.

Now let's look at the different forms of validity.

And finally, up to 50 to 70 of software development effort is spent on validation and debugging.

It could simply be, motivation or the children's ability to take tests in general or, how happy they are in the school environment.

Appropriate?

Does the test consist of words that children should know?

That meaning, it should converge with that other measure of that same construct.

learning vocabulary, should show, lower scores or depressed scores on this test to show some nomological validity.

Then we haven't established that it is valid but now we are moving towards, we're able to see if we have valid construct.

normal, adequate, borderline, mildly.

What's fair?

valid

25, Patty.

First we'll talk about reliability and validity in individual variables and individual, individual measures of psychological constructs, and then we'll talk about the idea of sampling.

Then we would be demonstrating convergent validity.

It's not enough though to just show convergent validity.

Security guard's looking good.

Now, I know what you must be thinking

The explored set, on the other hand, is easier.

The second form of validity, convergent validity, is where statistics and correlations come in.

So to recap this segment.

And how to interpret arguments based on cor relational analysis.

The Gorn's offer is reasonable.

We've talked about NHST when we talked about measurement issues and correlation, if you remember.

That fella treating you with kid gloves.

They treat me the way I deserve to be treated.

But you can have another party.

And it is about the dirty word compromise. Compromise is not bad.

We're talking maybes, let me suggest one. Who was with her out there at the Procter place?

I've heard that Brutus is an honorable man, or at least so Mark Antony told me.

I was saying seven o'clock would be a reasonable time...

So what kind of a contributor was I?

Any doubts about the validity of this argument are promptly forgotten once we see the data.

We feel 875 is very fair.

Right? Uh, then you wanna make sure that the mediator and

This is all well and good, except that changes in different directions actually effect whether or not we think options are good or not.

Not in a measurement sense, but just with respect to correlations and, and correlation based arguments.

So, one way to operationalize verbalability in children is to give them a vocabulary test.

There seems to be no possibility of compromise.

Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?