A primer on the validity typology and threats to validity in education research

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Asia Pacific Education Review Pub Date : 2024-03-30 DOI:10.1007/s12564-024-09955-4
Kylie Anglin, Qing Liu, Vivian C. Wong
{"title":"A primer on the validity typology and threats to validity in education research","authors":"Kylie Anglin,&nbsp;Qing Liu,&nbsp;Vivian C. Wong","doi":"10.1007/s12564-024-09955-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Given decision-makers often prioritize causal research that identifies the impact of treatments on the people they serve, a key question in education research is, “Does it work?”. Today, however, researchers are paying increasing attention to successive questions that are equally important from a practical standpoint—not only does it work, but for whom and under what circumstances? Invalid conclusions to any of these questions can result in the adoption of ineffective educational practices. This article discusses the enduring legacy of Shadish, Cook, and Campbell’s validity typology, and its associated threats to validity, for improving the validity of inferences in education research. The validity typology provides a system for classifying and improving inferences related to four validity types, including ensuring a causal relationship between a treatment and outcome (internal validity) that is precisely estimated (statistical validity), well understood (construct validity), and generalizes to the necessary circumstances (external validity). Here, we provide an overview of these four validity types and discuss proactive approaches to addressing them. We conclude by discussing how the validity typology framework may help researchers understand and address contemporary critiques of quantitative causal research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47344,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Education Review","volume":"25 3","pages":"557 - 574"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12564-024-09955-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given decision-makers often prioritize causal research that identifies the impact of treatments on the people they serve, a key question in education research is, “Does it work?”. Today, however, researchers are paying increasing attention to successive questions that are equally important from a practical standpoint—not only does it work, but for whom and under what circumstances? Invalid conclusions to any of these questions can result in the adoption of ineffective educational practices. This article discusses the enduring legacy of Shadish, Cook, and Campbell’s validity typology, and its associated threats to validity, for improving the validity of inferences in education research. The validity typology provides a system for classifying and improving inferences related to four validity types, including ensuring a causal relationship between a treatment and outcome (internal validity) that is precisely estimated (statistical validity), well understood (construct validity), and generalizes to the necessary circumstances (external validity). Here, we provide an overview of these four validity types and discuss proactive approaches to addressing them. We conclude by discussing how the validity typology framework may help researchers understand and address contemporary critiques of quantitative causal research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于教育研究有效性类型和有效性威胁的入门读物
鉴于决策者通常优先考虑因果关系研究,以确定治疗方法对其服务对象的影响,教育研究的一个关键问题是 "是否有效?但如今,研究人员越来越关注从实际角度来看同样重要的连续性问题--不仅是它是否有效,而且是对谁有效,在什么情况下有效?对其中任何一个问题得出无效结论,都可能导致采用无效的教育实践。本文讨论了沙迪什、库克和坎贝尔的有效性类型学及其相关的有效性威胁对提高教育研究推论有效性的持久影响。效度类型学提供了一个系统,用于分类和改进与四种效度类型相关的推论,包括确保治疗与结果之间的因果关系(内部效度)、精确估计(统计效度)、充分理解(建构效度)以及推广到必要的环境(外部效度)。在此,我们将概述这四种效度类型,并讨论解决这些问题的积极方法。最后,我们将讨论效度类型学框架如何帮助研究人员理解和应对当代对定量因果研究的批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Asia Pacific Education Review
Asia Pacific Education Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Asia Pacific Education Review (APER) aims to stimulate research, encourage academic exchange, and enhance the professional development of scholars and other researchers who are interested in educational and cultural issues in the Asia Pacific region. APER covers all areas of educational research, with a focus on cross-cultural, comparative and other studies with a broad Asia-Pacific context. APER is a peer reviewed journal produced by the Education Research Institute at Seoul National University. It was founded by the Institute of Asia Pacific Education Development, Seoul National University in 2000, which is owned and operated by Education Research Institute at Seoul National University since 2003. APER requires all submitted manuscripts to follow the seventh edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA; http://www.apastyle.org/index.aspx).
期刊最新文献
Development of instructional design principles for using ICT in resource-limited learning environments: a case of Bangladesh Teacher’s views on professional learning and development in primary schools in Fiji Effects of the English language intervention as a foreign language for struggling elementary readers in South Korea: a meta-analysis Foreign higher education and corruption: is host country knowledge a blessing or a curse? Empirical evidence from MENA countries The trajectory of teachers’ multicultural transformation: an analysis of teachers’ beliefs about mathematics as a school subject
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1