The concepts of reliability and validity are very important in sociological research: If data is reliable but not valid, then it may have limited use. Validity is one of two criteria, the other being reliability, by which researchers judge their results or measurement tools. A valid result is one that accurately measures what it claims to be measuring. Using shoe size as a measurement of intelligence is not a valid measure of intelligence. It lacks face validity since it is not obvious that it is measuring what it claims to measure. One test of validity might be the extent to which your measurements allow you to make predictions about future behavior.
The concept of validity refers to the extent to which the data we collect gives a true measurement of "social reality." Concurrent validity is a parameter used in sociology, psychology, and other psychometric or behavioral sciences. Concurrent validity is demonstrated where a test correlates well with a measure that has previously been validated. The two measures may be for the same construct, or for different, but presumably related, constructs. In social science and psychometrics, construct validity refers to whether a scale measures the unobservable social construct that it purports to measure. The unobservable idea of a unidimensional easier-to-harder dimension must be "constructed" in the words of human language and graphics. Nomological validity is a form of construct validity. It is the degree to which a construct behaves as it should within a system of related constructs called a nomological set.
Critical Sociology of Science and Scientific Validity - Sal Restivo, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Julia Loughlin, Syracuse University, Science Communication, Vol. 8, No. 3. Critical sociology of science, in conjunction with an emancipatory epistemology, focuses attention on the social and especially value aspects of validity and objectivity. We explore their implications for the problem of validity in applied social science research. Drawing on research on the use of illegal drugs, we argue that Campbell's suggestions regarding how to define research problems and treat qualitative methods, as well as other aspects of his "sociology of scientific validity, " may improve validity in the sense of achieving consensus and vigor within specialties. More generally, however, his program may inhibit progress in developing accurate, objective knowledge of science and society.
On the Validity of
Official Statistics A Comparative Study of White, Black, and Japanese High-School Boys -
William J. Chambliss, Univ. of California, Richard H. Nagasawa, Portland State College,
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.
A continuing debate in the sociology of deviance is the degree to which official statistics are representative of the distribution and rate of deviance in the society. Official and unofficial delinquency rates of black, white, and Japanese youths in a large metropolitan area were analyzed. Our conclusion is that official statistics are so misleading that they are virtually useless as indicators of actual deviance in the population.
Validity - Toward an Interdisciplinary Science Studies
Robert A. Neimeyer, William R. Shadish, JR, Memphis State University. Science Communication, Vol. 8, No. 3, 463-485 (1987).
In his lead article for this series, Campbell discusses the role of a "disputatious and mutually reinforcing community of truth seekers" in promoting a sociology of scientific validity. SIn general, however, these considerations do not vitiate Campbell's prescriptions so much as point up the need for conceptually informed empirical research on the outcome of varymg social structures for science.
Validity of Self-Reports
About Quality of Life Among Patients With Schizophrenia
Nasreen Khatri, M.Sc., David M. Romney, Ph.D. and Guy Pelletier, Ph.D. Psychiatr Serv 52:534-535, April 2001.
Lehman's Quality of Life Interview was administered to 22 patients with schizophrenia and their proxies and to 15 patients with cancer and their proxies. The results indicated that there was a discrepancy between responses on global objective and subjective measures for patients with schizophrenia but not for patients with cancer. A discrepancy was also found for the proxies of the patients with schizophrenia but not for the proxies of the patients with cancer.