On This Page:ToggleDefinitionImportanceHow To ImproveWho Should MeasureHow To MeasureFace Validity vs Content Validity
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
Key TakeawaysFace validity refers to the degree to which a test appears to measure what it is intended to measure. This is often determined from the perspective of the test-taker or experts.Face validity is not a technically rigorous form of validity, meaning it is not a guarantee that a test is actually measuring what it is supposed to. It is primarily a matter of public perception.While it does not guarantee that a test is actually measuring what it is supposed to, it can enhance test-taker cooperation, public acceptance, and clinical utility.
Key Takeaways
What Is Face Validity?
Face validity is the extent to which a test appears to measure what it is intended to measure.
In simpler terms, face validity is about whether a testlookslike it is measuring what it claims to be measuring (Johnson, 2021).
Face validity is not a technically rigorous form of validity, and does not rely on established theory for support (Fink, 2010).
It doesn’t guarantee that a test actually measures what it is supposed to measure.
However, it’s still an important consideration, particularly in applied settings, as it can impact test-taker cooperation, public acceptance of test results, and the establishment of rapport in clinical settings.
Importance of face validity
Face validity is not a technically rigorous form of validity, meaning it is not a guarantee that a test is actually measuring what it is supposed to. It is primarily a matter of public perception.
However, it is still an important consideration for several reasons:
Tests that appear to be face valid can give participants and researchers alike confidence that the results of the assessment are fair and equitable (Johnson, 2021).
Face validity can be used to eliminate subpar research quickly. For example, a researcher reviewing a paper on the link between vaccinations and autism in children may reveal several shortcomings in the design of the experiment, causing the paper’s rejection of face validity.
Additionally, face validity is important for establishingother types of validity. It is necessary for establishing the content validity of a test, which is defined as “the extent to which a test covers all important aspects of the domain being measured” (Siraj et al., 2021).
How can face validity be improved?
Here are ways to improve face validity:
Who should measure face validity?
Face validity is a subjective judgment about whether a testappearsto measure what it is supposed to measure.
In general, however, it is best to have multiple people measure face validity, as different people may have different perspectives on what is important for measuring a construct.
Determining face validity often involves considering the opinions of both test-takers and experts:
For example, researchers might ask test-takers to rate the relevance and clarity of test items, or they might convene a panel of experts to review the test content and provide feedback on its face validity.
It is also important to note that face validity is not static; that is, what is considered face valid for measuring a construct can change over time.
For example, a personality test measuring “masculinity” and “femininity” that was developed in the 1950s may not be considered valid today, as society’s understanding of gender has changed significantly since then.
As such, it is important to review and update measures of face validity regularly.
How to measure face validity
It is important to note that face validity is a subjective judgment and does not guarantee that a test actually measures what it is supposed to measure.
When should you test face validity?
Face validity is often measured during the early stages of test development, as it can give researchers an idea of whether or not the content and format of a test are appropriate for measuring the desired construct.
However, it is important to note that face validity is only a preliminary step in assessing the overall validity of a test; other types of validity (e.g., content validity,predictive validity) must also be assessed to determine whether or not a test actually works (Fink, 2010).
Face Validity vs Content Validity
Face validity andcontent validityare distinct but related concepts in the field of psychometrics. While both relate to the perceived appropriateness of a test, they differ in their scope and focus.
Face validity focuses more on appearances and perceptions than on a systematic evaluation of the test content.
For example, a depression questionnaire that asks about symptoms like sadness and loss of interest would have face validity because these symptoms are commonly associated with depression.
Face validity is often considered a subtype of content validity, meaning that a test with good content validity will typically also have good face validity.
However, the reverse is not always true. A test can appear to measure what it is supposed to (face validity) but may not actually cover the full breadth of the construct (content validity).
Here’s a table summarizing the key differences between face validity and content validity:
In essence, while face validity can be a useful initial indicator of a test’s appropriateness, it is content validity that provides a more robust and reliable assessment of whether a test truly measures what it is intended to measure.
Fink, A. Peterson, P. L., Baker, E., & McGaw, B. (2010). International encyclopedia of education. Elsevier Ltd..
Johnson, E. (2021). Face validity. In Encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders (pp. 1957-1957). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
McDermott, R. (2011). Internal and external validity. Cambridge handbook of experimental political science, 27-40.
Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 14(4), 5-8.
Rubio, D. M. (2005). Content validity.
Siraj, S., Stark, W., McKinley, S. D., Morrison, J. M., & Sochet, A. A. (2021). The bronchiolitis severity score: An assessment of face validity, construct validity, and interobserver reliability. Pediatric pulmonology, 56(6), 1739-1744.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard UniversityCharlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson
Research Assistant at Harvard University
Undergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
