Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lawshe
Lawshe
net/publication/275556443
CITATIONS READS
16 2,722
2 authors, including:
Andrew J Scally
University of Bradford
108 PUBLICATIONS 1,909 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Factors Affecting Sound-Source Localization in Children with Simultaneous or Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implants
View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew J Scally on 10 October 2015.
Abstract
The content validity ratio originally proposed by Lawshe is widely used to quantify content
validity and yet methods used to calculate the original critical values were never reported.
Methods for original calculation of critical values are suggested along with tables of exact
binomial probabilities.
Keywords
measurement, content validity, validation design, content validity ratio
consider whether the level of agreement is were unable to provide a satisfactory expla-
also above that which may have occurred by nation for the apparent anomaly between
chance. As a result, Lawshe reported a table panel sizes of 8 and 9.
of critical CVR (CVRcritical) values computed In their article, Wilson et al. (2012) pro-
by his colleague Lowell Schipper, where duced a new table of CVRcritical values using
CVRcritical is the lowest level of CVR such that the normal approximation to the binomial dis-
the level of agreement exceeds that of chance tribution. This method we believe to be inferior
for a given item, for a given alpha (Type I to calculation of exact binomial probabilities
error probability, suggested to be .05 using a as, by definition, it is ultimately just an approx-
one-tailed test). CVRcritical values can be used imation and may not be valid for small sample
to determine how many panel members need sizes and for proportions approaching 0 or 1
to agree an item essential and thus which (Armitage, Berry, & Matthews, 2002). It is
items should be included or discarded from understandable that a normal approximation
the final instrument. To include or discard was used for larger panel sizes when Schipper
items from a given instrument appropriately, calculated the original CVRcritical values in
it is imperative that the CVRcritical values are 1975, but as statistical programs can now read-
accurate. Recently, concern has been raised ily calculate exact binomial probabilities, it
that the original methods used for calculating would seem more appropriate to do so in the
CVRcritical were not reported in Lawshe’s arti- present day. We had further concerns regard-
cle on content validity, and as both Lawshe ing the methods used by Wilson et al. (2012)
and Schipper have since passed away, it is to calculate the normal approximation, as it
now not possible to gain clarification (Wilson appeared a continuity correction had not been
et al., 2012). Furthermore, an apparent anom- employed. In cases where the continuous nor-
aly exists in the table of critical values between mal distribution has been used to approximate
panel sizes of 8 and 9, where CVRcritical unex- the discrete binomial distribution more accu-
pectedly rises to 0.78 from 0.75 before mono- rate results are obtained through use of a con-
tonically decreasing with increasing panel tinuity correction (Gallin & Ognibene, 2007;
size up to the calculated maximum panel size Rumsey, 2006).
of 40. This led Wilson et al. (2012) to try and Based on the wide discrepancy between
identify the method used by Schipper to calcu- CVRcritical reported by Wilson et al. (2012) and
late the original CVRcritical values in Lawshe Lawshe (1975), we intended to answer the
(1975) in the hope of providing corrected following questions:
values.
Despite their attempts, Wilson et al. 1. Did Wilson et al. (2012) correctly
(2012) fell short of their aims. They sug- employ a method for calculating bino-
gested that Schipper had used the normal mial probabilities?
approximation to the binomial distribution 2. What method was employed by Schip-
for panel sizes of 10 or more, yet these claims per to calculate CVRcritical in Lawshe
were theoretical as they were unable to (1975) for all panel sizes?
reproduce the values of CVRcritical reported in 3. Are there anomalies in Schipper’s
Lawshe (1975). As values for CVRcritical cal- table of critical values in Lawshe
culated by Wilson and colleagues differed (1975)?
significantly from those reported in Lawshe 4. Did Lawshe report CVRcritical for a one-
(1975), it was suggested that instead of the tailed test or a two-tailed test?
one-tailed test reported Schipper had, in fact,
used a two-tailed test as this more closely As a result of our belief that exact binomial
resembled their results. In addition, for panel probabilities were more appropriate than nor-
sizes below 10 no satisfactory explanation mal approximations, we also intended to cal-
was provided of how CVRcritical may have culate exact binomial probabilities for all
originally been calculated. Furthermore, they panel sizes between 5 and 40.
1
0.9
0.8
Content validity rao (CVR)
0.7
0.6 CVR crical exact
0.5
CVR crical normal
0.4 approximaon (Ayre and
Scally, this paper)
0.3
CVR crical normal
0.2 approximaon (Wilson et
0.1 al, 2012)
Figure 1. Chart showing comparison between critical values for content validity ratio.
for calculating CVRcritical with the exception As this utilizes the cumulative binomial prob-
of the continuity correction. ability the interpretation of this result is “there
As the values we have calculated are the is at least a probability of 0.95 of getting 11 or
same as those of Lawshe (1975) it is apparent fewer successes.” Thus, there is at most a
they have also used a one-tailed test at p = .05 probability of .05 of getting 12 or more suc-
as they originally reported, and not a two- cesses. This is the critical number we are
tailed test as suggested by Wilson et al. (2012). interested in to assure a level of agreement
Can the critical CVR values given by above that of chance at α set at .05.
Lawshe (1975) be used to accurately deter- The error in calculating exact binomial
mine panel size? probabilities may explain why Wilson et al.
In general, use of the originally calculated (2012) failed to realize that Shipper had calcu-
CVR values from Lawshe (1975) yields an lated exact binomial probabilities up to a
equal value for the critical number of experts panel size of 10.
required as shown in our exact calculations.
The only discrepancy occurs for a panel size CVRcritical Based on the Normal Approximation to
of 13 where the exact CVRcritical is marginally the Binomial. CVRcritical values reported by
under that reported by Lawshe. Importantly, Wilson et al. (2012) based on a normal approx-
our findings would suggest that question- imation to the binomial distribution are mark-
naires and checklists developed using the edly lower than those we have calculated using
CVRcritical values originally reported by Law- a continuity correction for all given panel sizes
she (1975) remain valid. (see Figure 1). It is clear from their formula for
calculating the critical value for CVR that a
continuity correction was not used by Wilson
Comparison to Wilson et al. (2012) et al. Conversely, the values given in Lawshe
CVRcritical Based on Exact Binomial Probabili- are consistent with the normal approximation
ties. The exact CVRcritical based on binomial using the continuity correction and are there-
probabilities we have calculated using Stata fore closer to the exact binomial probabilities
differ from those given by the CRITBINOM we have reported in this article. On this basis,
function in Microsoft Excel employed by we believe that the recalculated values for
Wilson et al. (2012) as a result of the discrep- CVRcritical reported in Wilson et al. (2012) are
ancy in the critical number of experts required inaccurate and therefore should not be used.
to agree an item “essential” produced by each Wilson et al. (2012) and Lawshe (1975)
method (see Table 1). We believe that Wilson have both calculated CVRcritical values for
et al. (2012) have incorrectly interpreted the panel sizes of 10 or more (Wilson et al., 2012,
result returned from the CRITBINOM func- used the normal approximation for all panel
tion and therefore the CVRcritical based on the sizes) based on a normal approximation of the
exact binomial probabilities shown in Figure 1 binomial distribution. We believe this is an
of their article are incorrect. The method used inferior method to the exact calculations we
by Wilson et al. (2012) returns one fewer than have reported for the following reasons:
the true critical number of experts required to
ensure agreement above that of chance for a 1. If the normal approximation value for
given value of α (Table 1) yet no mention of CVRcritical is higher than that produced
this can be seen in their article. This can be from exact calculations of binomial
illustrated through an example using a panel probability the panel size deemed nec-
size of 15. essary will be higher than required.
2. If the normal approximation value for
Example: Considering a panel size (n) of 15, CVRcritical is lower than that produced
probability of success (p) of .5 and α = .05. from exact calculations of binomial
probability the panel size deemed nec-
CRITBINOM (15, 0.5, 0.95) = 11 essary may be lower than required.
Table 2. Simplified Table of CVRcritical Including the Number of Experts Required to Agree an Item
Essential.
Presented above is a simplified table of CVR- reduction in the required proportion level of
critical
values, calculated using exact binomial agreement that an item is “essential” for it to
probabilities, which includes the number of be included (e.g., between panel sizes of 12
experts required to agree any given item is and 13). In addition, it is also immediately
essential (Table 2). apparent that increasing the panel size by 1
It can be seen from Table 2 that preferred will actually increase the required proportion
panel sizes exist, when the addition of a level of agreement on occasions (e.g.,
further panel member leads to a significant between panel sizes of 13 and 14). We believe