Given that the primary focus of my research involves crime rates, the level of measurement required is interval. As interval level of measurement describes variables that have differences between them numerically. Therefore, all crime rates are interval level measurements. The purpose of content validity is to measure the significant variables within the research. Further it can be used to quantify the adequate sampling of substance areas of questionnaires to determine content relevance. Content validity requires two logical estimations based upon objective evaluation: a degree of measurability given to each variable that illustrates the important qualities and the set of variables that depict all viewpoints of the qualities. “Content validity is obtained from three sources: literature, representatives of the relevant populations, and experts" (Burns N., & Grove S.K. 1993). Content validity can occur in a two step process involving the developmental and the judgmental stages. There is not definitive objective methodology for determining the content validity. However, “content validity in the judgment stage is based on quantitative evidence” (Wilson, H.S. 1989). “To examine the content validity in judgment stage, professional subjective judgment is required to determine the extent to which the scale was designed to measure a trait of interest” (Nunnally, J.C. 1978). “Ghiselli pointed out that content validity depends on subjective or professional judgment” (Waltz, C.F., & Bausell, R.B. 1983). “Content validity is a subjective judgment of experts about the degree of relevant construct in an assessment instrument. However, inclusion of at least five experts in that field” (Burns, N., & Grove, S.K. 1993) or “five to ten experts would be useful to judge the content domains of a scale through use of rating scales” (Wilson, H.S. 1989). Developed by Waltz and Bausell (1983), the Content Validity Index (CVI) assesses variables by evaluating each individually on a four-point scale depended on their relevance, clarity, simplicity, and ambiguity to establish content validity. Given the research variables encompassed within the purposed research plan, including law enforcement officials, local government officials, social institutions and organizations, and citizens within disadvantaged communities. To ensure content validity is adequate for this research it is essential to evaluate and assess each variable according to the Content Validity Index based upon current literature review. The first article clearly demonstrates the causation of crime within communities created by the social decay within disadvantaged communities that lack social institutional support systems. This article also illustrates the modifications within law enforcement strategies that changed them from the peace keepers of old, to a more reactionary force (Galston, W. A. 1997). This second article illustrates the limited social support within communities to mitigate social deficits that directly correlate with criminal behavior. The research demonstrates how social programs provide limited support to incarcerated individuals but fails to continue social support following release, which leads to high rates of recidivism and decreased public safety (Paparozzi, M. A., & Schlager, M. D. 2009). Empirical validity, which is also commonly known as predictive validity is statistical data established through a set screening process to determine future activities. This is most commonly used to evaluate university performance by comparing standardized test score data with grades to determine trends among university students that relate test scores to success or failure within university. However, the current research plan does not require any empirical validation because continually changing data would not support an empirical comparison with another variable to determine the effectiveness of social programs, effectiveness of judicial programs, or...
References: Kingston, B., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (2009). A test of social disorganization theory in high-risk urban neighborhoods. Youth & Society, 41(1), 53-79. DOI: 10.1177/0044118X09338343
Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., Taylor, A., & Eterno, J. (2003). Quality-of-life policing: Do offenders get the message? Policing, 26(4), 690-707. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/211270200?accountid=14872
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006) Construct validity. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Social Research Methods. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/constval.php.
Paparozzi, M. A., & Schlager, M. D. (2009). Reconciling what works and broken windows: The policy relevance of individual and social correlates to recidivism reduction. Victims and Offenders, 4(4), 427-434. DOI: 10.1080/15564880903227628.
Galston, W. A. (1997). Crime fighters. Public Interest, (126), 102-107. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222057734?accountid=14872
Burns, N., & Grove, S.K. (1993). The practice of nursing research conduct, critique, and utilization. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A Report To The United States Congress. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, Ofﬁce of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Wilson, H.S. (1989). Research in nursing. 2nd ed. California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Waltz, C.F., & Bausell, R.B. (1983). Nursing research: Design, Statistics and Computer Analysis. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis Company.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document