Introduction
Validity and reliability are two fundamental components of research in data collection, particularly in test construction. Validity refers to the extent to which measurement methods produce accurate data, while reliability assesses how a study can be reproduced in various settings. Several types of validity operate at different stages of measurement, evaluating the method itself, whether the results are relevant, whether they can be applied to a particular condition or concept, and how they can be reliably reproduced. The Life Position Scale is a model developed by Boholst in the early 2000s to measure people’s life positions using a test he also created. Boholst and other researchers conducted various validity analyses to validate the model and ensure the trustworthiness of its results.
Validity Description and Types Overview
Validity indicates how well the research results can serve their intended purposes, while also highlighting potential research flaws and limitations. Various validity types enable the evaluation of whether instruments accurately measure what they are intended to measure and identify potential errors. Reliability indicates the accuracy of the data, enabling researchers to assess its trustworthiness (Ahmed & Ishtiaq, 2021).
While validity concerns measurement methods, instruments, and data obtained through them, reliability indicates whether research is reproducible. If other data can be obtained by performing similar actions, reliability is low, even if validity is high. Operationalization, instruments, constructs, and the different validity dynamics must be clearly defined before data collection begins. As this paper will discuss the different types of validity used to validate the Life Position Scale studies, it is necessary to define these types first.
Construct, content, face, internal, external, conclusion, and criterion validity are the primary types used. Construct validity indicates whether the test accurately measures the concept intended to be assessed using the constructs employed (Hufford, 2019). For example, depression is a construct that unites difficulty of concentration, apathy, and loss of sleep. Still, each of these symptoms separately cannot tell anything about whether the depression is present.
Content and face validity are much more subjective and cannot be used alone. Content validity assesses whether a concept is fully represented in the results, while face validity indicates whether the results can be understood (Hufford, 2019). Internal validity demonstrates how independent variables are well-defined, while external validity determines whether measurements yield the same results when applied to other samples.
Lastly, criterion validity measures how well the measurement method performs relative to other well-established methods, specifically whether it yields the same results as other methods in studies where the results are already known. Thus, criterion validity is essential for method calibration; internal validity enables researchers to verify the reliability of their variables, while construct validity demonstrates how results can describe or address a specific problem.
Validity of Employment in Life Position Scale
Implicit employment of validity methods occurs when no information about validity methods is explicitly provided in the study. Within the Life Position Scale, Boholst (2002) employed specific criteria to assess an individual’s life wellness based on their convictions, which were later revised to validate the study’s findings. He initially administered his test to 95 participants, examining how children perceive themselves and the world around them in light of their personal convictions. Together with other researchers, he aimed to investigate the connection between early mother-child nurturing relationships and children’s self-perceptions and views toward others. To calibrate
Boholst created a scale to help him in his studies, where he used four items for the convictions:
- I’m OK (I+)
- I’m not OK(I-)
- You’re OK (U+)
- You’re not OK (U-).
His test, used to determine a person’s life position, had questions with several response options:
- All the time
- Most of the time
- Some of the time
- Half the time
- Never.
Boholst based the term conviction on “Okness and Not-Okness” of self (I) and others (U), referring to Berne, who created this four-conviction scheme. To validate his method, he proposed using it with already studied groups of people, comparing the results, which is a criterion validation (Boholst, 2002).
He also offered internal validation by defining independent variables based on the Life Position Scale results and seeing their correlations with other known variables, such as mental health parameters. He employed this method in studying attachment styles with colleagues, revealing correlations between life positions and attachment styles, and elucidating the reasons behind children’s problems with self-worth and trust (Boholst et al., 2005). Therefore, using criteria and internal validation, Boholst developed his Life Position Scale into a reliable and trustworthy instrument for measuring one’s life position.
In the following studies, which used the Life Position Scale, it was explicitly validated. In the article by Isgor et al. (2012), the researchers explicitly stated that they would use construct and concurrent validity to determine whether the model performs well when the Turkish language is used in tests rather than English. They used statistical factor analyses of the scale results to estimate construct validity, showing how well. For concurrent evaluation, they compared results from the original Boholst model and its Turkish-language version. They conducted a confirmatory factor analysis, which confirmed the scale’s validity.
Therefore, in organizing the first test, which was only used on healthy individuals, Boholst tested all types of the population to validate it. The model uses content validity, although it is not explicitly stated. He used descriptions of the Berne concept of four convictions and ensured that the test results covered the concept (Boholst, 2002).
Boholst applied the retest instrument across various populations and examined external validity. He also employed criterion validity widely, though not explicitly, by comparing his Life Position Scale items with those of similar tests. After retesting the instruments, Boholst found that the items correlated with the tester’s assessments, such as attachment styles, indicating construct validity (Boholst et al., 2005).
Subsequent studies tested the scale’s validity in other conditions, such as when using it in a different language environment, for example, Turkish (Isgor et al., 2012). Various validity types were used to ensure that the Life Position Scale and Boholst’s test are trustworthy. Therefore, it can be used to measure people’s positions and understand their problems, as well as how to solve them.
Conclusion
The validity of employment is essential in social science, where clear constructs should be defined to ensure that results are both meaningful and reproducible. Various validity types can be used; content validity assesses whether the results accurately reflect the intended content. In contrast, correlation validity compares test results with similar tests to determine whether the results are comparable. External validity evaluates various populations and compares the results to ensure consistency. Construct validity assesses whether data correlate with one another, as illustrated by factor analysis.
All these validity types were applied to Boholst’s Life Position Scale and tested by Boholst and other researchers to evaluate the model and decide whether it could be trusted. Life position results were consistent across variables, such as attachment styles, and can be reproduced in other language environments. These valid results demonstrate that the Life Position Scale is a reliable and valid tool.
References
Ahmed, I., & Ishtiaq, S. (2021). Reliability and validity: Importance in medical research. JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 71(10), 2401–2406.
Boholst, F. A. (2002). A life position scale. Transactional Analysis Journal, 32(1), 28–32.
Boholst, F. A., Boholst, G. B., & Mende, M. M. B. (2005). Life positions and attachment styles: A canonical correlation analysis. Transactional Analysis Journal, 35(1), 62–67.
Hufford, B. (2019). Validity in Research Design. ActiveCampaign.
Isgor, I. Y., Kaygusuz, C., & Ozpolat, A. R. (2012). Life positions scale language equivalence, reliability and validity analysis. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 284–291.