‘Validity’ reflects a characteristic of being ‘well grounded or justifiable’. This word has been applied to research study designs (internal and external validity), the degree to which a simulation activity reflects reality (simulation validity), and training effectiveness (training validity). However, when I say ‘validity’, I am nearly always referring to the degree to which the interpretations of scores resulting from an assessment activity are ‘well grounded or justifiable’. I never refer to the validity of interventions (training activities, including simulation) because that just creates confusion with the assessment perspective, and I try to avoid talking about valid study designs (although sometimes that can’t be helped).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David A. Cook (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: