Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,374

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

Almanasreh, Enas, Moles, Rebekah, Chen, Timothy F.·2019·Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 38 references

Cited by

See all 1,374

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.