For the purpose of our trial, it was validated by face validity using the expertise of mental health experts.
Future research should evaluate convergent validity using other validation measures such as accelerometers and more detailed recall questionnaires.
This instrument now needs further validation such as: confirming the construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis, and criterion-related validity.
For validation of the measure, factorial validity, concurrent validity using the Japanese version of PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales (PedsQL-J), and discriminant validity using comparisons between children with cancer and healthy controls were investigated.
Internal consistency, interobserver reliability, criteria validity using 24-h esophageal pH monitoring, construct validity, and extreme group validation were assessed.
This study was a quantitative investigation of test validity using an interpretive model.
This study assessed factorial validity, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and established reliability and convergent validity of the EITI.
The instrument was tested for content validity using 5 experts, and the reliability of the instrument was equal to 0.99.
We further checked reliability and construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis and hierarchical regression analyses for hypothesis testing.
In the tradition of dialogical logic, it is usual to define validity using the notion of winning strategy for the Proponent.
Using qualitative data and existing literature, we constructed a theoretical framework and tested its empirical validity using a novel employer-employee nested dataset.
