What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to identify the minimum number of respondents needed to validate questionnaire items as essential.

March 14, 2026Quality & Quantity0 citationsOpen Access

Discovering the critical number of respondents to validate an item in a questionnaire: the binomial cut-level content validity proposal

HCHelder Gomes Costa JCJosé Fabiano da Serra Costa EEEDILVANDO PEREIRA EUFRAZIOInstituto Nacional de Tecnologia

Key Points

This research aims to identify the minimum number of respondents needed to validate questionnaire items as essential.
Proposes a new binomial cut-level approach for content validity.
Evaluates existing methods like Content Validation Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI).
Analyzes paradoxes in existing validation methods.
Highlights the inconsistency in current validation approaches.
Suggests that items deemed essential need to be re-evaluated for non-essential validation.
Demonstrates a need for a more nuanced probability assessment in item validation.

Abstract

The question that drives this research is: “How to discover the number of respondents that are necessary to validate items of a questionnaire as actually essential to reach the questionnaire’s proposal?” Among the efforts in this subject, Lawshe (Pers. Psychol 28:563–575, 1975), Wilson et al. (Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 45:197–210, 2012), Ayre and Scally (Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 47:79–86, 2014), Lynn (Nurs. Res. 35:382–386, 1986); Polit et al. (Res. Nurs. Health 30:459–467, 2007) approached this issue by proposing the Content Validation Ratio (CVR) and Content Validations index (CVI) proportion that look to identify items that must be relevant or even essential in a questionnaire. Despite their contribution, these studies do not check if an item validated as “essential” should be also validated as “not essential” by the same sample, which should be a paradox. Another issue is the the loss of nuance caused by assigning a probability equal to 50% to a item be randomly checked by a respondent as essential, despite the rater has three or more options to choose. Our proposal faces these issues, making it possible to verify if a paradoxical situation occurs, and being more precise in recommending whether an item should either be retained or discarded from a questionnaire.

问 AI

Bookmark

View Full Paper