Validity is the backbone of a successful research project. It determines the reliability and stability of its hypothesis. Validity can be defined as the ability of a study to measure or gauge what it claims to have measured or studied. A valid test should fulfill the three aspects of validity. They are test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability. The focus of this discussion is to analyze the different types of validity that have been employed in measuring or evaluating a Life Position Scale. A life position is a subjective opinion or point of view that an individual develops and takes during childhood. These views or convictions are created by early script programming. They shape how a person values themselves and values others. A Life Position Scale is a model or tool that is used to measure a person's Life Position (Boholst, 2002).
Five types of validity could apply in regards to the life position scale. Face validity is the simplest form of validity. This type measures whether the test is sensible, logical and applicable to the subject of research. It evaluates a method based on its face value. It is the easiest form of validity to apply because anyone can implement it without any specialized knowledge. Sometimes, the sample group used in the study are asked to comment on whether they think the study will answer a given query. The negative or positive answer can be considered to be a measure of face validity. Its main disadvantage is that it is an indirect or implicit type of validity that has ambiguous variables. This makes it easier to manipulate or fabricate (Boholst, 2002).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Content validity examines whether a method measures the behavior it is supposed to study. In other words, the behavior demonstrated should reflect or represent the behavior in question. It is hard to apply when trying to measure or define objects with variable components. High content validity should represent all the angles or parts of the given subject. For instance, measuring weight or height demonstrates a high content validity. Thus the method is direct or explicit. Predictive validity is the extent to which a test accurately predicts what it expects to happen in the future. Eg. Employers administer questionnaires to their prospective employees in the hope that the answers will predict future behavior while in employment. This is an example of a cognitive test that predicts performance ratings. Most countries base their educational systems on this method as a way of creating a bottle neck effect. This approach is also known as criterion related validity(Boholst, 2005)
Concurrent validity is focused on the extent to which a test is comparable to an external criterion that is known. A new test is said to have concurrent validity if it corresponds to a criterion that is currently accepted and existing. In other words, it builds on the foundation of a solid idea that is in existence. The index from the new test correlates to that of a nonidentical test. Construct validity is the final type. It demonstrates the extent or degree to which a test measures the concept, create or theory that it describes.
Fredrick A. Boholst first attempted to develop a Life Position Scale to use to measure life position for his doctoral dissertation. He begins by adopting these four convictions. I'm OK (I+), I'm not OK (I-), You're OK (U+), You're not OK (U-). An I+U+ position is thought to represent a healthy person with a well-balanced psyche. An I+U- individual, has a superiority complex. They are arrogant at best and killers at worst. I-U+ is a position of inferiority. The person is depressed and carries feelings of shame. They are the most likely to commit suicide. I-U- are the individuals with no interest in life. They do not value their lives or those of others. Most are child molesters and great criminal minds. Since these convictions create the Life Position of a person, he used them to create subject questions. The questions posed were to be answered by a Likert scale. Ten questions were to be answered for each conviction. The test takers were to respond the questions by choosing one of the following. All the time, most of the time, half of the time, sometimes, or never. Each answer was given a score. Factor analysis was then used to summarise the data and present it in a simplified form (Boholst, 2002).
The Life Position Scale developed above was first based on Face validity. This is because it adopts a simplified approach to the validation. The test takers accepted the results to be an accurate reflection of their mental health status although the test was vague. For example, a person with a score of I-40 and U-30 is considered to belong to the category of I'm OK ,you're not okay. This is based on the median score developed from the factor analysis. The median score for I is 38 while 36 is the median score for U. This approach is validated by face validity. This life position scale cannot be relied on entirely to make or give a clinical psychological evaluation. This is because no question asked has clear cut answers. For example, if a test taker is asked Are you comfortable with your current employer? They may choose to answer most of the time. However, this does not answer the question in full. The test taker may be comfortable with their job because they do not have any other form of income generation. The promise of guaranteed income at the end of the month may be their only motivation. So although this Likert scale gives a general impression of accuracy, it does not provide a conclusive analysis of the life position.
The life scale presented is also subject to construct validity. It proposes to determine the life position of a person based on their convictions. However, this scale fails to demonstrate the extent or degree to which a life position is embraced. Here is a simple demonstration.
An employee gets questioned about their immediate supervisor. This is after the supervisor has admonished them for some personal oversight. The employee produces a score of I39 U35. This implies that the employee has an I'm OK, you're not okay perspective. A later test months later gives a score of I40U38 though the work conditions haven't changed. While both these tests are accurate, they do not portray the same results or demonstrate a similar life position . This is because we often respond to questions based on our mood, perceptions and the general state of mind. So while this test meets face validity, it does not have a very high construct validity(Boholst, 2002).
As the author stated in the article, this life position scale cannot be used for therapeutic purposes. The participants are likely to give answers that they think are acceptable. A case in point is the group of students that was utilized for this exercise. Their answers were mandatory and may not have been truthful. This is why this is recommended for general research purposes as it gives a non-specific analysis of the psychological well-being. A follow-up research study sought to understand the relationship between life positions. This article attempted to explain the question that was asked in the previous article. The factor analysis used had come up with only two summarizing elements. Namely, I and U. The issue raised was the lack of clear cut degrees of OK-ness and not okay-ness. The second article takes up the suggestion to resolve the issue by correlating the position life scale to attachment theory through Transactional Analysis.(TA). This test is subject to construct and concurrent validity.
The attachment theory classifies infants as securely attached, anxious-ambivalent or avoidant, fearful type. These types are argued to be observable in romantic and marital relationships of adolescents and adults. Those firmly attached are lovable to themselves and others. They are accepting and responsive just like Berne's I+U+ individuals. I'm OK, you're OK. Fearful type is similar to I-U- in that the subject has interpersonal problems. Anxious-ambivalent or preoccupied attachment is almost identical to I-U+ where the individual values others but disregards themselves. Another type is the dismissive attachment and the individual values themselves but disregards others like I+U-(Boholst, 2005).
The research tried to examine how life positions can be viewed from an attachment perspective and also how theoretical attachment can be considered from a life position. The study suggested that the four attachment types are conceptually similar to the life positions. This was after the research results underwent a canonical analysis that supported this hypothesis. The only exception was in the I-U+ that did not correlate with the I+U-. Out of the total findings, this was the only demographic that did not share a statistically reliable proportion. These research findings highlighted the danger of undermining research methods that are deemed too simple or basic. It was apparent that life positions have been a part of psychology for many years though no significance was accorded to them because of their simplicity. Instead, a lot of emphases has been placed on more complicated research that was sometimes impossible to prove or validate. Many transactional theorists have started embracing the value in simplicity, and it is slowly gaining respect(Boholst, 2005).
Another recent study that adopts Boholst's Life Position Scale is the basis for an article that was published in 2012. Ahmet Ospolat made a language adaptation in the scale. He then did a correlation that was similar to that of Boholst in the second article. It was a correlation between Turkish and English forms. The Transactional Analysis approach was used again with ego state being the central concept. This article unwraps TA further to demonstrate its role in unveiling concepts in interpersonal relations. The idea of life positions is used to justify the origin of adult behavior. The research methodology was designed using Boholst's Life Position Scale and his Likert type scale but with a few changes due to the Transactional Analysis approach. The aim was to examine the construct validity of the confirmatory and exploratory factors of the Life position scale. The inclusion of the TA approach also raised concurrent validity because it was building on a tried and tested approach (Isgor et al.,2012).
The results were analyzed using principal component factors that demonstrated construct validity. The data was also subjected to variables acts convert. The analyzed results implied that the scale presented similar distribution to the original scale. Given that the findings corresponded with the initial scale structure, it was concluded that the scale could be used to measure life positions in Turkey. This study in Turkey has led Boholst's Life Position Scale to attained some sense of universality. Because it has been replicated widely with similar results, it is widely perceived as being true. This is despite being adapted to meet specific needs and requirements of different subject matters. This is not a small achievement in psychological fields. Following this study in Turkey that achieved both construct and concurrent validity, the authority of the Life Position Scale is now guaranteed. It is now widely accepted as a reliable research methodology (Trochim, 2006).
The three articles discussed show a gradual validation of The Life Position Scale. The first article that was published by Boholst was a descriptive study. It introduced the Life Position Scale model and detailed how it works. It relied more on Face and to a lesser extent on Construct validity. Boholst took his scale further in his second study by carrying out a correlational analysis. This addressed a relational question. The third study in Turkey was both relational and causal in that different variables were used to determine the outcome. Though the process increased in complexity, the result was the same consistently. All the studies above employed validity implicitly. The Likert scale used in all the data collection methods used variables that were based on attributes. The questions posed had independent variables that were both exhaustive and mutually exclusive. The data collected was qualitative, but the analysis methods were able to manipulate it and make it numerically descriptive. Because the Life Position Scale was able to achieve construct validity through measurement, it is considered a solid research problem formulation method (Trochim, 2006).
The hypothesis was also able to meet the test-retest reliability measurement. This is apparent in the way each of the results from the three articles was able to produce results that were almost identical. It also exhibited a great deal of internal consistency. Similar questions posed in similar environments led to the same conclusions. This has been particularly true in the application of the concepts. In a nut shell, the Life Position Scale fulfilled the inter-rater reliability because it was carried out by different people with similar results. It, therefore, fulfills face validity, construct validity, and concurrent validity.
References
Boholst, F. A. (2002). A life position scale.
Boholst, F. A., Boholst, G. B., " Mende, M. M. B. (2005). Life positions and attachment: A canonical correlation analysis.
Isgor, I. Y., Kaygusuz, C., " Ozpolat, A. R. (2012). Life positions scale language equivalence, reliability and validity analysis.
Trochim, W. (2006). The research methods knowledge base.
