The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity
Abstract
&NA; The assessment of content validity is a critical and complex step in the development process of instruments which are frequently used to measure complex constructs in social and administrative pharmacy research. The aims of this study were to investigate the elements of content validity; to describe a practical approach for assessing content validity; and to discuss existing content validity indices. This is a narrative review of the assessment and quantification of content validity. It describes the key stages of conducting the content validation study and discusses the quantification and evaluation of the content validity estimates. Content validity provides evidence about the degree to which elements of an assessment instrument are relevant to and representative of the targeted construct for a particular assessment purpose. The assessment of content validity relies on using a panel of experts to evaluate instrument elements and rate them based on their relevance and representativeness to the content domain. It is a three‐stage process that includes; the development stage, judgment and quantifying stage, and revising and reconstruction stage. To quantify the expert judgments, several indices have been discussed in this paper such as the content validity ratio (CVR), content validity index (CVI), modified–Kappa, and some agreement indices. A practical guide describes the process of content validity evaluation is provided. In summary, content validation processes and content validity indices are essential factors in the instrument development process, should be treated and reported as important as other types of construct validation. Determining item CVI and reporting an overall CVI are important components necessary to instruments especially when the instrument is used to measure health outcomes or to guide a clinical decision making. Content validity deserves a rigorous assessment process as the obtained information from this process are invaluable for the quality of the newly developed instrument.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20147 · Cited by 7,510
A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY1
LAWSHE, C. H. (1975) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x · Cited by 7,313
Determination and Quantification Of Content Validity
LYNN, M. R. (1986) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 · Cited by 6,775
Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20199 · Cited by 5,273
Educational measurement, 3rd ed.
Linn, R. L. (1989) · Cited by 2,857
Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.238 · Cited by 2,387
Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts
Davis, L. L. (1992) · Applied Nursing Research · doi:10.1016/s0897-1897(05)80008-4 · Cited by 2,364
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Vogelzang, J. L. (2015) · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.03.007 · Cited by 2,337
Douglas, O. B., & Holland, B. F. (2015) · Fundamentals of educational psychology. · doi:10.1037/14910-020 · Cited by 2,272
Cited by
Cruchinho, P., López-Franco, M. D., Capelas, M. L., Almeida, S., Bennett, P. M., Miranda da Silva, M., Teixeira, G., Nunes, E., Lucas, P., & Gaspar, F. (2024) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s419714 · Cited by 469
Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Ginns, P., Krell, M., & Schneider, S. (2022) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4 · Cited by 118
Banerjee, P., Srivastava, A. K., Adjeroh, D. A., Reddy, R., & Karimian, N. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3524102 · Cited by 32
Chohan, S. R., Hu, G., Khan, A. U., Pasha, A. T., & Sheikh, M. A. (2021) · Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/tg-05-2020-0079 · Cited by 26
Chakraborty, U., & Biswal, S. K. (2024) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2024.2332987 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Almanasreh, E., Moles, R., & Chen, T. F.
- Venue
- Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 214-221
- ISSN
- 1551-7411 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2794918504
- Cited by
- 1,374
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 122.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066
- The paper
- Almanasreh, E., Moles, R., & Chen, T. F. (2019). Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.