Topic 3: Validity {by 9/22}

Based on the text readings and lecture recording due this week consider the following two discussion points: (1) Discuss your understanding of criterion-related validity (also known as: prediction or instrument-criterion).  In you discussion, include why this particular type of validity is common/important for mental health assessments.  (2) First, discuss the difference between convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity.  Second, provide an example of a hypothetical or real assessment where these two types of validity would be important – very common for many mental health assessments (hint: listen to my example in the lecture recording).

 

Your original post should be posted by 9/22.  Post your two replies no later than 9/24.  *Please remember to click the “reply” button when posting a reply.  This makes it easier for the reader to follow the blog postings.

79 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Tiana Faulkner
    Sep 16, 2022 @ 15:25:58

    Criterion-related validity has to do with whether or not an instrument is a good predictor of whatever the outcome is that they are looking for against another instrument. It is about the accuracy of the test and being confident about it doing its job. So, you are able to compare the test to another established instrument to make sure it is valid. This type of validity is important for making sure an instrument is measuring what it is supposed to be measuring in the correct way. It makes sense that it would be commonly used because these new assessments need to be valid and doing their job correctly. So, a new intelligence test would be analyzed against an already well-established standard IQ test.

    The difference between convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity is that convergent validity tests whether instruments that should be related, are related and discriminant was the opposite. Discriminant evidence validity tests whether believed unrelated forms are actually unrelated. To test for these, you ask similar questions that are designed to provide specific, expected answers. For example, as the example used within the lecture, testing a new anxiety inventory against a well-established depression inventory to make sure the anxiety instrument discriminates the anxiety, to make sure it is actually testing for depression. While obviously convergent is the opposite, comparing the new anxiety inventory against a well-established anxiety inventory making sure it does test for the anxiety.

    Reply

    • Grace Ling
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 22:00:56

      Hi Tiana,
      To add to your examples of convergent vs. discriminant evidence validity, we also want to see if there is a high or low validity coefficient which will tell us if the instrument is related to another instrument. In the case of convergent evidence validity, we do want our instrument to relate to other related instruments.

      Reply

    • Becca Boucher
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 15:40:40

      Hi Tiana!
      I really like your explanation about the difference between convergent and discriminant evidence validity. I was having a bit of trouble figuring out a way to remember discriminant evidence validity, but the way that you worded it really helped. I can now remember that discriminant evidence validity discriminates between different domains of mental disorders. I wonder though if convergent or discriminant evidence validity is more important for an assessment to have, or if they play equal parts.

      Reply

  2. Jack Halliday
    Sep 17, 2022 @ 12:49:37

    Criterion-related validity is essentially if the questions being asked adequately describe what is being measured. For example, if our test to get our learning permits asked us questions about birds, it would have very low criterion-related validity. This is especially important/common for mental health assessments because these tests are very domain specific. Asking questions about depression on an anxiety test is great but will not help a clinician learn about their client’s anxiety, therefore making the information gathered from the test not helpful in terms of anxiety.

    Convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity vary in their relationships to other tests that examine their respective variables. With convergent, you want the assessment to be positively correlated with other assessments that it theoretically should be. Discriminant evidence validity is concerned with making sure the instrument isn’t positively correlated to other assessments from which it should differ. An example where these two types of validity would be important is the example I gave earlier. If you have a high level of convergent evidence validity between an anxiety and a depression inventory tests, then one of those tests is inadequately measuring its respective domain. For an anxiety assessment to have high validity in this regard, it should have a high coefficient for convergent validity, and a low coefficient of discriminant validity when it’s being compared to other measures of anxiety.

    Reply

    • mikayladebois
      Sep 20, 2022 @ 12:45:03

      Hi Jack, I like your example of the clinician trying to learn about their client’s anxiety. You are right that learning about someone’s depression can be helpful and possibly relevant to their treatment, but it might be better to learn about each specific domain on its own before tackling the combined problems.

      Reply

    • Becca Boucher
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 13:12:10

      Hi Jack!
      I really like how you mentioned that an anxiety assessment that asks questions about an individual’s depressive symptoms would not be helpful in terms of looking at that person’s anxiety. This goes back to the concept that something isn’t valid or invalid, but rather that its uses are valid or invalid. In that case, the anxiety measure asking questions about depression would be an invalid measure for an individual’s anxiety symptoms and that clinician should seek out a different instrument. You also mention that in mental health, assessments are very domain specific. This is important when it comes to assessing specific symptoms or attempting to diagnose a specific disorder, but where certain things, such as anxiety and depression are so close and very often comorbid, I do wonder how great of a differentiation there can be between those measurements.

      Reply

  3. Becca Boucher
    Sep 17, 2022 @ 14:32:29

    Criterion-related validity is the degree to which an instrument is a good predictor/ measure of the topic or construct that it intends to measure (the criterion). This particular type of validity is important in mental health assessments because when giving assessments, you want to ensure that they are measuring what they are intended to measure. If you believe your client to clinically anxious, so you give them an anxiety assessment and it contains items measuring the Five Factor Model of Personality, the items of that assessment are not going to validly measure the individual’s anxiety, which is what you want measured, and what the assessment claims to measure. It is very important that an assessment measure what it claims it does in order to help clients determine their symptoms severity and/or diagnosis. However, that cannot be done accurately with assessments containing items unrelated to the criterion.
    The difference between convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity is that convergent evidence of validity shows that an instrument correlates highly with other instruments/measures that it should correlate to, while discriminant evidence of validity exists when an instrument does not correlate to an instrument/measure that it should have no correlation with. For instance, if your anxiety assessment you’ve created has convergent evidence of validity with an assessment for OCD, then your anxiety assessment is not a valid measurement of anxiety. However, if discriminant evidence of validity exists for your anxiety assessment with an OCD assessment, then your anxiety assessment is more focused on measuring anxiety, as it should.

    Reply

    • Alyson Langhorst
      Sep 20, 2022 @ 12:23:04

      Hi Becca!

      You bring up a good point that criterion validity isn’t just about predicting future behavior, it’s also about making sure that the instrument is measuring what it’s intending to measure. If the instrument isn’t measuring the construct fully/is measuring something else instead, then we can’t use the individuals’ scores to predict future outcomes. For your example of discriminant validity, I think you bring up a good point that subcategories of disorders do have symptomology differentiating them from other disorders so, comparing instruments that measure disorders within the same category to make sure that they are different is important. I had to do a group project last year where each group had to create a subscale for a specific type of self-esteem. My group did academic self-esteem while another group did global self-esteem. While both have some similarities (as they are both pertaining to self-esteem), they are also looking at different aspects of the construct- and thus we had to make sure that our subscale wasn’t measuring global self-esteem. To your point, you don’t want your instrument that’s measuring GAD (for example) to be related to an instrument that’s measuring OCD or PTSD, even though these disorders are within the same category.

      Reply

    • Whitney Andrew
      Sep 20, 2022 @ 12:56:52

      Hi Becca!

      I really like the example you gave of the Five Factor Model of Personality not being relevant to measuring anxiety, it is drastically different which makes it that much better of an example. I would argue that it is the most important thing that an assessment measure what it claims it does so that it can accurately diagnose clients and not harm them even further by misdiagnosing and mistreating them.

      The example you used of OCD assessments overlapping with anxiety assessments is a really strong example to use! I wonder if you were measuring OCD and used an anxiety scale if it would present the same invalidity or would differ due to the nature of anxiety in relation to OCD.

      Reply

    • Tiana Faulkner
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 10:08:46

      Hi Becca! I really liked your examples that you had used for both the first part of the response and the second part. When doing this assignment, I was a bit confused on exactly what criterion-validity was looking at. Was it the accuracy of a measure or a question. Obviously, I was able to figure it out, but your response was definitely an easy one to read and understand. For the second part of the response, you laid out the examples quite clearly. Obviously OCD and personality disorders are drastically disorders and making sure the assessments for one are not accidently testing for the other is very important

      Reply

    • Jack Halliday
      Sep 22, 2022 @ 15:48:28

      Hey Becca, your example in the first section of the post really stood out to me because, unlike mine, the two examples you gave were drastically different. I think the differences between personality assessments and anxiety assessments makes that example much stronger. This is of course not a question that you can answer, but one that occurred to me while writing my response. I wonder if there are any assessments that validly measure more than one domain/criterion, and if so do these types of validity even apply in such a scenario? Either way, you had a really strong discussion post that portrayed the concepts accurately and succinctly.

      Reply

  4. Abby Sproles
    Sep 19, 2022 @ 19:26:49

    Criterion-related validity evaluates an instrument’s ability to predict a certain behavior. An example of criterion-related validity would be evaluating the ability of an aptitude test of determining whether a person will perform well in a certain career. This type of validity is important for mental health assessments because a practitioner needs to understand if the instrument will accurately predict a particular behavior. If a practitioner believes that a client may be depressed, they need to evaluate if the instrument will predict behaviors related to depression. In addition, a particular score on a scale can inform the clinician of the severity of current or future behavior.

    Convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity considers the comparison of an instrument’s relationship to other variables. Convergent evidence confirms that an instrument is related to another instrument due to positively related variables. Discriminant evidence confirms that unrelated variables are really unrelated. If you had an instrument that measured the degree of optimism, convergent evidence would be demonstrated if another instrument demonstrated comparable scores of the optimism. On the other hand, discriminant evidence would exist if another instrument demonstrated high levels of a different construct and therefore a low validity coefficient.

    Reply

    • Alyson Langhorst
      Sep 20, 2022 @ 11:52:03

      Hi Abby!

      Your example for criterion-related validity illustrates the concept really well! It’s important for academic and aptitude testing results to not only accurately measure what they are intended to measure, but they also need to be able to predict future outcomes of the scores. With academic testing, it’s a bit difficult since there are many other variables that could’ve caused the score- such as test anxiety, as you said though, it’s also applicable/important for mental health testing too. Specifically, we can use it for developing treatment plans. If we can predict what the behaviors will turn into, we can hopefully prevent them from getting to that point. I also really liked your example for convergent validity. I would only add that the instrument that’s being used as a comparison (for either convergent or discriminant validity), should ideally be well-established and have high construct validity. It wouldn’t be useful if we compared a new optimism test to one that has low validity.

      Reply

    • Melissa Elder
      Sep 22, 2022 @ 11:45:45

      Abby,
      I really enjoyed reading how you define CRV. I also thank you for pointing out my confusion, I think I was having a hard time wording it correctly but also didn’t fully comprehend its purpose. I also agree with the importance of CRV in mental health assessment I like that you added that the score can help inform the clinician.

      Reply

    • Magdalen Paul
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 20:36:40

      Hi Abby! I like your example for criterion-related validity in context of a career aptitude test. The goal of a career aptitude test is to predict which jobs an individual would perform best in. If a test of this nature had low criterion-related validity, you could misinform your client on where they would be likely to perform well and find success in a career. You could lead your client astray by guiding them to pursue a career that actually would not be the best fit. Imagine the incongruence an individual would feel if they’d had an inclination toward a healthcare career all throughout childhood, and then after taking an aptitude test with low criterion-related validity, were informed that a finance career would supposedly be their “best fit.” Not only might this confuse clients and cause doubt, but it may also lead you as a clinician to plan future treatment steps that simply would not help the client as best as possible. A situation such as this is almost synonymous to having Joe as your client but guiding him toward the treatment plan for Mark!

      Reply

  5. Emily Forde
    Sep 20, 2022 @ 10:10:25

    Criterion-related validity measures how effective an instrument is in predicting the outcome and often compares the instrument used to other instruments. When compared to other instruments, the instrument being observed should produce similar outcomes, meaning the test is both accurate and has validity. This type of validity is important for mental health assessments because it ensures that the therapist is measuring what they are looking to measure, and they are able to do this accurately. This accuracy matters tremendously in the mental health field because the assessments often are used as evidence to back up a diagnosis. If the evidence given by the assessment is not valid, the client will then receive a faulty diagnosis which can lead to a treatment plan that is not accurately tailored to them and what they are struggling with.
    Convergent evidence validity aims to have an assessment that is positively correlated with other related assessments in the field. On the other hand, discriminant evidence validity focuses on not having correlation with assessments that it should not have correlation with. For example, if an assessment for panic disorder was given to a client, it should have convergent evidence validity (positive correlation) with anxiety, as they have many similarities. However, the panic disorder assessment may lack discriminant evidence validity if the assessment focused more on measuring generalized anxiety disorder than it did for panic disorder and lacked the ability to differentiate panic disorder from anxiety.

    Reply

    • Whitney Andrew
      Sep 20, 2022 @ 13:04:42

      Hi Emily!

      Your comment of a faulty diagnosis has me wondering how many criterion-related validity measures an instrument must endure to be deemed ‘valid’ in diagnoses. How many measures do you think would take to have an instrument be considered valid in client care?

      I really like your example of anxiety and panic disorder as they are so similar it may be harder to differentiate whether instruments assessing one may be valid if they overlap with the other. The relationship direction is very important between these two instruments and something that is very important to take into consideration as well.

      Reply

    • Jack Halliday
      Sep 22, 2022 @ 15:56:53

      Hey Emily, I found the way you laid out your answer in the first part to be especially informative. It’s important to remember that there are lasting consequences for the results of assessments given in the mental health field, especially when they can have such a tremendous impact on treatment. You also bring up a very good point about convergent validity between two different, but very similar, disorders. It never really occurred to me that certain assessments will have high levels of convergent validity in that situation. It does make me wonder how much is too much? Those two disorders have a lot in common, but even so I wonder where the line is in terms of too much convergent validity between two similar but different disorders.

      Reply

    • Lucy Rising
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 12:08:00

      Hey Emily, I like in your post how you underline the importance of a valid assessment not by talking about how a valid assessment could benefit a client but how an invalid assessment could potentially cause them harm. This is important for us as future clinicians to keep in mind while assessing and treating our future clients. In trying to help them we must always be cognizant of what we are doing and how we are doing it so as to make sure we are never unintentionally harming the client.

      Reply

  6. Alyson Langhorst
    Sep 20, 2022 @ 11:34:54

    My understanding is that there are two types of criterion-related validity; predictive and concurrent. Predictive validity looks at how well the instrument’s results are able to predict outcomes. The example they gave in the book uses academic testing and how an individuals’ scores might be able to predict future performance. For mental health assessments, I think that this type of validity is particularly important because mental health fluctuates, so being able to use an instrument that can predict certain outcomes would be helpful in using preventative measures as opposed to waiting for symptoms to worsen. Concurrent validity refers to how well an instrument measures the construct it’s intending to measure. This is similar to convergent validity in that you’re comparing your instrument to an established instrument/set of criterion.

    Convergent evidence validity measures the extent to which an instrument is measuring the construct it should be measuring as well as the variables that are theoretically related to it. Basically, if you were to test your instrument and another instrument (that’s measuring the same thing) then they should both be positively related. Discriminant evidence validity refers to the extent to which an instrument is measuring only the construct and not constructs that are not related to it. The difference between these two validities is that one is looking for instruments measuring the same construct to be related while the other is looking for instruments that are measuring different constructs to be unrelated. In both instances, you would want to test your instrument against one that is considered “the gold standard” or one that is considered to have high validity for a specific construct.

    An example of convergent validity would be if you were to make a new depression inventory, you would run tests with the Beck depression inventory to see how related they are (i.e. are they both measuring the same thing). Ideally, you would want to see that they are related which would mean that your test is measuring depression. An example of discriminant validity would be if you were to run tests between a new schizophrenia inventory scale and the EDI-3. You would hopefully see no correlation between them (since these two instruments should be measuring different constructs). If there was some relation, then it would mean that one of the instruments isn’t measuring what it’s intending to measure.

    Reply

    • Emily Forde
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 15:56:36

      Hi Alyson, I like that you mentioned that predictive validity is important in the mental health field because of the fluctuation of mental health. I agree and feel that predictive validity is important for predicting outcomes. However, because of the fluctuation of mental health, do you think predicting certain outcomes is the most useful method if an individual’s mental health is going to fluctuate or would this produce outcomes that are temporary and not as useful?

      Reply

    • Wendy Fernandes
      Sep 22, 2022 @ 18:07:31

      Hi Alyson!
      Your descriptions of convergent and discriminant evidence were clear and helpful in understanding these concepts. For your section on criterion-related validity, I would add that a difference between concurrent and predictive validity is the time between when an assessment is administered and when the results are obtained with the concurrent validity instruments typically providing speedier results.

      Reply

  7. Whitney Andrew
    Sep 20, 2022 @ 12:33:49

    After the readings and lecture recording I understood criterion-validity as a measure of validity in terms of the ability to predict relevant behaviors to the instrument being used to measure. The text gave the example of academic performance as predicted by instruments like the GRE, which was a helpful example to conceptualize this concept. This type of validity is important for mental health assessments so that it can predict a client’s behavior, especially those at high risk for harming themselves or others, so that the counselor can help to circumvent this predicted harm. It is also common as to better predict outcomes of behaviors from clients, regardless of being harmful or not, to know what to work on with the client in terms of these predicted behaviors.

    Convergent evidence validity is an instrument is measured in comparison to other variables that are similar in content. Discriminant evidence validity occurs when the instrument used for measurement is not correlated with other similar variables of measurement. The difference is that convergent evidence validity measures similarities of instruments, whereas discriminant evidence validity is the lack of instrument similarity to other instruments. An example of a real world mental health issue (as referenced in the lecture) would be the comparison of a depression instrument and a GAD instrument for convergent evidence and discriminant evidence validity. It is important to investigate these two different types of validity because with assessments like a depression instrument and a GAD instrument, you would want a lower correlation variable and a high discriminant variable so that the instruments are not too similar to measure two different variables.

    Reply

    • Emily Forde
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 16:01:38

      Hi Whitney, I like how you pointed out that criterion-validity is especially important for mental health because of the ability to predict client’s behavior if they are at a high risk for harming themselves. In most cases, the therapist can determine the client’s risk level by using assessments and other tools. However, in the few cases that the assessments and tools do not determine a client’s risk level accurately, what do you think could be improved upon or done in the mental health field to ensure that a client’s risk level is being detected all of the time?

      Reply

  8. mikayladebois
    Sep 20, 2022 @ 12:41:06

    Criterion-related validity is questioning whether an instrument accurately reports on the behavior domain that it is supposed to be measuring. In any field, it is important that the right tests and assessments are used to draw conclusions (your Psychological Measurement grade should not be determined by a test asking about Abnormal Psychology), but in the mental health field, there may be more significant implications one has to contend with. When trying to measure impulsivity, it won’t be useful to have information about resiliency instead.
    Convergent evident validity is that found when an instrument goes along with that which it should, whereas discriminant evidence validity means it disagrees with that which it should disagree. Pretty much this means that an instrument is tested by correlating its findings with other variables that are either similar or dissimilar to what it is supposed to be testing. In trying to determine if someone has had a recent manic episode or other mood disorder symptoms, it would be expected that the instrument would include items about impulsivity, elevated mood, and disrupted sleep patterns. The instrument should be able to determine whether there had been a manic episode but also rule out a depressive episode with discriminative evidence (the person was not in a depressive episode because their symptoms were more aligned with mania and dissimilar to those of depression).

    Reply

    • Esther Konadu
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 20:44:43

      Hi Mikayla,

      Your real-life example of our classes is a great choice! That helped solidify the concept for me a bit more firmly. Like you were saying about being a disservice, I think that it is essential that we (as future providers) work hard to make sure we are doing the most beneficial things for our clients. Otherwise, what would be the point of going to school?

      Reply

    • Ashley Millett
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 10:59:52

      Hi Mikayla,

      I really like your example for criterion-related validity! I think using real examples such as classes we take, helps all of us to better understand the material. I really like the way you described convergent evidence and discriminant evidence validity. The examples you had picked made the two definitions click better with me. The examples also went well with your clear definitions of convergent and discriminant validity.

      Reply

    • Stephanie Lugo
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 14:28:40

      Hi Mikayla,

      I really like your examples used for criterion-related validity. I think using examples of the classes we are currently taking helps us better understand the true definition. It’s true that of course using wrong assessments and validity types in the mental health field have larger and more signifiant implications that can stem from these errors.

      I like how you used bipolar depression and whether their assessments showed if they were more in a manic or depressive episode at the time of the assessments. This is why it is so important to administer assessments frequently to keep up with where the client may be at different points in their lives. It’s also so important to check in on your clients every so often and see if their assessments have changed. In someone who has bipolar disorder this is even more important. If at one point a client is in a manic stage when they are assessed their assessment may differ from another time when they are having a depressive episode. This is the reason we must not just administer assessments often, but also be constant with the type of assessments we use.

      Reply

  9. Esther Konadu
    Sep 20, 2022 @ 12:47:46

    Criterion-related validity is whether the content of the instrument relates to the topic. If the instrument was about depression, having a question about joyfulness lowers the criterion-related validity. It is important to have because it provides an internal checklist for the assessment. If every item on the assessment relates to each other and focuses on the same topic, then the assessment has good criterion-related validity.

    From what I understand, convergent evidence validity is making sure that similar assessments are equally assessing the same things. If there were two instruments to measure anxiety, both should be able to measure anxiety. On the other hand, discriminant evidence validity is the opposite. The best way to see this is to look at two instruments that should not have anything in common. Since these instruments are measuring separate constructs, they have discriminant evidence validity. The BDI and PHQ-9 have great convergence validity because they are measuring the same thing (depression). If you looked at the BDI with GAD (an anxiety scale), you would have discriminant evidence validity because these two scales are measuring separate constructs (depression versus anxiety).

    Reply

    • mikayladebois
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 14:22:19

      Hi Esther! I like your approach to the “internal checklist” in an instrument. There are a lot of different aspects to a disorder or behavior domain and I think it is especially important to include as many of those as possible in assessments. Just like humans have more than one important feature, mental health has so many factors that only looking at one would be as much of a disservice as only considering someone based on their birth order.

      Reply

    • Melissa Elder
      Sep 22, 2022 @ 11:50:40

      Esther,
      I like that you talked about an internal checklist, that’s gives a better overall understanding of criterion related validity for me, so thank you. I agree with how you defined both convergent and discriminate evidence and I really liked that you added in examples with BDI vs PHQ-9 etc.

      Reply

    • Ashley Millett
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 10:54:12

      Hi Esther,

      While reading your description of criterion-related validity, it all started making sense to me more. I like how you mentioned an internal checklist to an instrument. That was when things started to become more clear to me. I think this is important to mental health assessments because you want to “check off” your list when assessing someone. I like how you were able to use real assessments to show your examples for convergent evidence and discriminant evidence validity. I feel that it is better to use real assessments to get a better understanding of the definitions.

      Reply

  10. rena yaghmour
    Sep 20, 2022 @ 15:47:39

    Criterion-related validity measures how well an instrument is able to predict a certain outcome. This type of validity is important for mental health assessments because it will assist the helper in predicting an outcome depending on how the client scored on the instrument. It’s also important because it gives the helper more insight about their client in which treatment can be created as well as prevention for predicted behavior that might occur.

    Convergent evidence validity refers to when two instruments correlate highly together when they have the same measure. While discriminant evidence is there to make sure that two instruments that should not be correlated with one another is determined to in fact, not be correlated to one another. For example, if the instrument is measuring schizophrenia there should be hallucination, hearing voices and delusion included in the instrument to where there would be a high level of convergent validity since they are correlated with schizophrenia and would help determine whether someone is dealing it. While discriminant validity should have low levels of OCD since the two don’t compare.

    Reply

    • Tiana Faulkner
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 10:19:26

      Hi Rena! Criterion-related validity is about making sure an instrument is doing its job correctly and measuring what it should be measuring. It is absolutely important for mental health assessments for reasons like preventing dangerous situations for the client and therapist as well as being certain the instrument is testing what it should be testing. While I definitely agree with your response, I feel as though this expansion is helpful! Also, for the two evidence validities convergence is making sure 2 assessments that are testing for the same thing have similarities in content and outcomes. While divergent is about testing 2 assessments that test for different things are in fact unrelated. So, a depression inventory is in fact discriminating against anxiety, or in the case of your example the schizophrenia assessment is discriminating against OCD. It is about making sure the assessments are only searching for what the assessment was intended to assess and weeding out anything unrelated no matter how closely related they may be.

      Reply

    • Stephanie Lugo
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 14:04:12

      Hi Rena,

      I think you gave a great clear definition of criterion-related validity. You are right that having this type of validity allows helpers to be able to predict and treat the client better; as they will be able to have more insight into the client and their assessments. You make a great point about being able to use criterion-related validity with assessments and how it can also help prevent and predict future behaviors that may occur.

      I also think your example of schizophrenia in regard to its level of convergent validity was a great one. It makes a lot of sense that if there were high levels of convergent validity within the schizophrenia assessment it would show what they were dealing with. Being able to clearly see the validity types in the assessments allow the helper to better assess and treat the problems that the client is dealing with.

      Reply

  11. Lucy Rising
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 10:34:56

    The way I understand criterion related validity is: How well does this instrument as a whole measure what it is designed to measure, and how well does it predict future behavior and feelings. It makes sense that this type of validity is important in the realm of psychological measurements because we need to know that when presenting a client with an assessment that is supposed to be measuring for feelings and behaviors of anxiety that we are receiving an accurate account of their current mental state. This is important at that moment for knowing how to proceed with treatment in that session. It is also important in gauging how the client might feel or behave in the future. This gives insight for the clinician on how to develop a plan to help mitigate future responses (in the example of an anxiety assessment: if a client reports feeling high levels of stress when exposed to a particular external stimulus and engages in avoidant behavior as a result, this can inform the clinician on how the client will respond in the future to similar stimuli and gives them possible insight on how best to provide treatment).
    Convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity are both correlational methods of validity that serve to measure the correlation of one instrument with another. With convergent evidence validity you want the pair to be strongly correlated with one another. For example, say you give someone an assessment measuring anxiety and afterward you give them a second different anxiety assessment the results ought to be positively correlated if both assessments are reliable and valid. Discriminant evidence validity is opposite, where you want the correlation between two different assessments measuring different things to be low. If you are measuring anxiety and you use an anxiety and a depression instrument and there is a high correlation between the two instruments that is saying that the two instruments are measuring the same thing. Therefore one of the instruments must not be valid because it is not accurately measuring what it is supposed to be measuring.

    Reply

    • Chandal Powell
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 17:50:05

      Hi Lucy,
      I really like how you defined CRV as well as convergent and discriminant evidence validity using the example of an anxiety assessment. This was very helpful in understanding all three concepts and how they relate to each other. I agree with you about the importance CRV has for mental health assessments. It assists clinicians in assessing the best treatment plan in the moment and determining how the client might feel, respond or behave in the future. As you have stated this will allow the clinician to be better prepared in treating the client and mitigating potential future responses.

      Reply

  12. Megan VanDyke
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 11:35:51

    Criterion-related validity’s primary purpose is to confirm or predict the criterion that is being measured. In other words, counselors must ensure that the overall assessment is related to the outcome criterion to be a good predictor. For example, an examiner can use the examinee’s score on an anxiety assessment to predict anxiety symptoms. This is especially important in mental health settings because choosing the wrong assessment can potentially harm the client. Validity ensures that the right criterion is being assessed to confirm or predict an appropriate diagnosis and will aid in developing an appropriate treatment plan.

    Convergent evidence validity occurs when one instrument positively relates to other instruments measuring the same variables, which means that two assessments measuring generalized anxiety disorder have convergent evidence validity. On the other hand, discriminant evidence validity occurs when two instruments measuring different constructs are not correlated. This means that the practitioner assessing the client wants to ensure that one assessment measuring Bipolar II is not significantly correlated with another assessment measuring depression.

    Reply

    • Gitte Lenaerts
      Sep 22, 2022 @ 17:11:21

      Hi Megan, As you mentioned it is essential for counselors to ensure that the assessment is related to the outcome criterion to be a good predictor. We want to have assessments that accurately predict the criterion that is being measured. You shared that this is crucial for mental health settings because picking the wrong assessment could lead harm to the client. This is absolutely true, we want to have criterion-related validity within assessments, so we can effectively treat our clients. Additionally, your convergent and discriminant evidence validity examples show the difference between the two. Both are important to utilize within assessments so we can determine if the test is accurately displaying what it is intended to measure. Great job!

      Reply

    • taylor poland
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 11:14:10

      Hi Megan,
      I think you did a really nice job stressing the importance of criterion-related validity. It is crucial that the assessments we give to our clients are measuring the intended criterion so we can use the information as a predictor. As you said, the use of valid assessments assists in a more accurate diagnosis and treatment plans given to the client. As future mental health professionals, it is super important we use reliable and valid assessments to ensure that the clients are receiving the best care possible.

      Reply

    • Maria Nowak
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 13:34:50

      Hi Megan!
      It is significant how choosing the wrong assessment can actually harm a client. This can lead to misdiagnosis, wrong medication, an inaccurate treatment plan. For example, depression and anxiety definitely have a few similar symptoms but they still need to be treated as two separate disorders. You did a nice job highlighting each type of evidence and giving examples as to why it is important to understand each.

      Reply

  13. Melissa Elder
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 11:39:41

    Criterion-related validity measures how well one instrument predicts the outcome for another instrument, meaning both instruments should produce similar outcomes. This would show the test is not only accurate but also has validity! This particular type of validity is important and common for mental health assessments because it is important to make sure what the instrument is measuring is what you are intending to measure. If you see a client you believe is depressed as a counselor you want to be sure to give them the instrument that will predict depressed behaviors. This goes back to making sure the counselor is accurately assessing and treating the client.
    Convergent evidence validity is when an instrument that is designed to measure anxiety correlates with another instrument that measures anxiety while discrimination evidence only exists when there is no correlation between two instruments, meaning they have no relation to one another. For example, as stated in the lecture discrimination evidence is testing a new depression inventory compared to an already well established anxiety inventory to make sure there is low correlation and for convergent you would take your new anxiety inventory compared to a well established anxiety inventory to make sure it is testing for anxiety and has a high correlation.

    Reply

    • Grace Ling
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 21:49:27

      Hi Melissa,
      I think criterion validity has to do with the instrument itself rather than relating to another instrument. You want your instrument to have an outcome related to the content you set out to measure. With your example it is important for patients being treated for one mental disorder to be evaluated with an instrument related to that mental disorder.

      Reply

    • Abby Sproles
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 22:12:45

      Hi Melissa, I definitely agree with your example that a practitioner may assess criterion-related validity in the case that they need an instrument to predict certain behaviors. However, I think you are misinterpreting the definition of criterion-related validity. The way I think about it is, does the instrument predict the behavior I am trying to measure. If I want to test for degree of anxiety, and the instrument I choose gives me a score that the client is demonstrating anxiety, this would be criterion-related validity.

      Reply

    • Brenna
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 23:27:04

      Hi Melissa,
      I enjoyed reading about your perspective on CRV! I agree it’s super important as a mental health professional/therapist to be able to administer assessments that will accurately assess symptoms so the client can receive the most accurate and fulfilling treatment. An instrument that can accurately depict depressed symptoms, is insanely helpful to a therapist whose next steps would be crucial to the client’s treatment.

      Reply

  14. Gitte Lenaerts
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 15:55:18

    Criterion-related validity is focusing on the instrument as a whole and seeing if the instrument is actually measuring the predicted outcome. Essentially, seeing if the instrument is accurately measuring what the test is intended to produce. We want to see if the score that was produced is a true representation of what the instrument is trying to measure. For example, if we have an instrument focusing on GAD, we want the score to show if the client is struggling with the criteria listed for GAD. This is why having criterion-related validity is important for mental health assessments. We want the test that is specific to a disorder to predict whether or not the client is struggling with a specific disorder. This way, having criterion-related validity is important for mental health assessments so we adequately can diagnose a client.

    Convergent evidence validity focuses on comparing an instrument with another instrument that focuses on the same topic and having them highly correlate. For a real-world example, if we have an instrument that is assessing depression like the PHQ-9, we want to have another instrument that assesses depression like the BDI to see if there is convergent evidence. With discriminant evidence validity, we are looking at instruments that differ in concepts and compare them to see if the instruments are not significantly correlated. For example, if we have an instrument that is measuring social anxiety we would try to find discriminant evidence validity using an instrument that measures depression to show that they are not correlated.

    Reply

    • Rena Yaghmour
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 22:26:41

      Hi Gitte!
      It is so important that helpers are giving clients the correct instrument, especially if we are assessing for something specific. I also believe that criterion related validity is particularly important because it helps predict future outcomes and allows the helper to come up with a plan ahead if needed.

      Reply

  15. Stephanie Lugo
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 16:23:55

    Criterion-related validity when applied to the mental health field is simply whether or not the questions being asked on an assessment are adequately able to describe and predict the outcome that is being measured. Using criterion-related validity allows us to see whether the assessments are accurate. It also helps the people distributing the assessment feel more confident about whether or not using the assessment is valid for their reasoning.

    An example of Criterion-related validity would be if we were taking a math test and all of a sudden the questions started asking about a book we read in a literature class. This would show there was no criterion-related validity. The literature questions have nothing to do with the math test and have little to no criterion-related validity to what is supposed to be measured. If the questions being asked on a test or assessment are not related to the specific topic at hand this can cause many problems, especially in the mental health field. Assessing clients with the wrong or unreliable assessment tools can lead to a wrong or missed diagnosis. This is why we must use and rely on criterion-related validity in the mental health field, especially with our assessments. If a clinician is assessing a client for mild anxiety and they give a questionnaire with questions related more to psychosis this would not be helpful when diagnosing anxiety in the client because the questions are not related to the possible diagnosis being assessed at that given time.

    Convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity have pretty much opposite definitions. Convergent evidence validity is used when there is a positive correlation between different assessments that are measuring relatively the same thing. While discriminant evidence validity does not have a correlation between different assessments measuring relatively the same thing. Whether there is or is not a correlation between similar assessments is really the only difference between convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity.

    Both convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity are very important when it comes to creating and distributing proper assessments in the mental health field. An example of this is when a therapist is assessing a client for Anxiety, but they may also have a feeling that the anxiety stems from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. If you administer an assessment for anxiety and then an assessment for OCD you can compare both assessments. When comparing the assessments, if there is a significant positive correlation shown between both the anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder assessment then these assessments would show that there is a high convergent evidence validity and low discriminant evidence validity within these two assessments. Seeing high convergent evidence validity between assessments would mean that the client’s anxiety seems to stem from obsessive-compulsive tendencies.

    Reply

    • Abby Sproles
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 22:20:10

      Hi Stephanie, your example of the difference between convergent and discriminant evidence is super clear! The only thing I question is if you would be able to conclude that the behavior, anxiety, stems from obsessive-compulsive tendencies. Wouldn’t high convergent validity evidence simply suggest that the two disorders are positively related in regards to anxiety. I don’t know if you can predict where the anxiety comes from. Maybe I am misinterpreting the concept.

      Reply

      • Stephanie Lugo
        Sep 24, 2022 @ 09:55:39

        Hi Abby,

        I understand the way I worded my post could be a bit confusing there. What I was trying to say is that if there was a high convergent evidence validity between the two assessments it would show that there was that correlation between the clients anxiety and her OCD tendencies. Since OCD is a type of anxiety disorder, this correlation in assessments does have the predictability that at least some of the clients anxiety is coming from her OCD behaviors. It of course doesn’t mean all of the clients anxiety is related to her OCD, but at least some of it would be.

        Hope that clears up what I was trying to say.

        Reply

  16. Taylor Poland
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 19:08:44

    Criterion-related validity has to do with whether the instrument is a good measure of the construct that it intends on measuring. This type of validity focuses on how well a certain instrument predicts certain criteria. An example of this validity is if one’s IQ is an accurate predictor of academic performance. This type of validity is important for mental health assessments because one wants to ensure that the assessment is accurately measuring what it is supposed to. If the assessment is not accurate, it could affect one’s future treatment plan. Mental health symptoms fluctuate so it is important to have an assessment that is capable of measuring accurately the intended criterion.
    Convergent evidence of validity means that an instrument correlates with another instrument that is measuring the same criterion. On the other hand, discriminant evidence of validity tests whether unrelated instruments are actually unrelated. If your depression assessment has convergent evidence of validity with an assessment for panic disorder, then your depression assessment is not a valid measurement of that criteria. If discriminant evidence of validity occurs for your depression assessment with a panic disorder assessment, then your depression assessment is more focused on measuring depression than it is on measuring panic disorder. The assessment will have many symptoms or experiences that coincide with depressive symptoms rather than panic disorder symptoms or experiences.

    Reply

    • Rena Yaghmour
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 21:59:22

      Hi Taylor!
      I agree. With so much change that goes on especially in the mental health world, as helpers it is so important to have an instrument that not only makes our job a little easier but also helps with measuring what we are looking for accurately. With out that tool I believe it would be hard for helpers to really get their client receive the help they need. Also, your example and explanation for convergent evidence and discriminant evidence helped me understand the concept a bit more.

      Reply

  17. Ashley Millett
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 19:55:33

    Criterion-related validity is when the instrument is able to either confirm or predict a certain outcome. This outcome can be used to help predict other outcomes to another instrument. With this, researchers can use it to help see if both instruments produce similar outcomes when being tested. This validity is important and common for mental health assessments because you would need to make sure your instrument is measuring what it intends to measure. If you think a client has symptoms of depression, you would want them to take an assessment for depression. You would want to prove your theory on what the client may have. If the client has symptoms of anxiety, you would not want them to take an assessment on depression. That assessment would not predict or confirm your outcome of “this client has anxiety.” It would not be valid or reliable. Hence, it is important for mental health assessments. You want to prove your possible theory.

    Convergent evidence validity is when you take an instrument that can be positively correlated to other instruments that are related to the same topic. An example of this is when the client is taking an instrument for anxiety. After the first one, we would make them take multiple instruments for anxiety to see if there is a positive correlation in each one. If there is, then the instrument shows convergent evidence validity. Discriminant evidence validity is the opposite of this. It is when an instrument is not related to other instruments that measure different topics. Going back to the example above for anxiety, we had a client take an instrument on anxiety. We can try to use an instrument that measures major depressive disorder. There we can see that there is low/no correlation to these two instruments. Since these measure two different disorders, we can assume that there is discriminant evidence validity.

    Reply

    • Magdalen Paul
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 16:48:38

      Hey Ashley! I like how you describe here the necessity of utilizing an instrument that could accurately point you closer to or further away from what you had observationally predicted pre-assessment in client discussion. For example, based on your conversations with a client, you may believe that they could be depressed, but want to utilize a depression inventory to gain a greater understanding on whether your prediction is more or less “correct,” to perhaps point you closer toward a diagnosis, from which you can begin planning treatment. Thus, it’s critical to examine criterion-related validity to feel more confident that the inventory is going to predict the mental health state of your client not only today, but tomorrow, and so on. With higher criterion-related validity comes higher confidence in developing a treatment plan for a client that may lead to constructive change. As you stated simply, we would not want a client that we suspected to have depression to take an anxiety assessment, when our intention is to examine depression. (Though there can certainly be overlap with the two, but that’s another discussion!)

      Reply

    • Vic White
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 13:46:13

      Hi Ashley,

      I like how you used an example whilst talking about Criterion related validity. It really aided my understanding on the topic and I liked that you kept referring to it and had an outcome to predict. I also liked the examples you used for convergent and discriminant evidence, it was different to other examples I have seen and heard so it was nice seeing it from a point where the client is involved in the process. The easiest way for me to remember the difference is convergent is high correlation and discriminant is low correlation and I think that is the most important difference.

      Reply

  18. Grace Ling
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 21:42:38

    From my understanding, criterion-related validity determines if an instrument is a good predictor of a construct (criterion). In other words, whether an instrument is able to accurately predict a certain outcome. We want our instruments to have outcomes related to the construct that we are attempting to measure. An example of this would be if an instrument is testing typing proficiency, the results would show whether an individual is skilled at typing. Criterion-related validity is important for mental health assessments because it can predict an individual’s future behaviors or how mental disorder symptoms may affect a patient. This allows for an accurate prediction of patient behaviors for future reference.

    The difference between convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity is whether an instrument is correlated to other measures or not. More specifically, with convergent evidence validity an instrument is related to other variables whereas discriminant evidence validity is not. So if you are attempting to develop an instrument on weight stigma, you can compare your instrument to a well established instrument like the WBIS (weight-bias internalization scale) to see if there is a high validity coefficient. On the other hand, you would not want your weight stigma scale to have a high validity coefficient with the GAD because they are not related constructs.

    Reply

    • Megan VanDyke
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 07:58:51

      Hi, Grace. You are correct about how criterion-related validity can predict future behaviors and the severity of the client’s symptoms. I wonder, how would that impact treatment if the client were to take an assessment and give false answers? Would this be completed throughout the treatment or during the first few sessions?
      I appreciate how you used one instrument and compared it to two other instruments to describe convergent and discriminant evidence validity. When reading the text and viewing the lecture, I had difficulty understanding whether the two could be tested simultaneously. However, your example makes it easier to comprehend.

      Reply

    • taylor poland
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 10:58:23

      Hey Grace!
      The way you explained criterion-related validity helped me gain a clearer understanding of the concept. I was having a bit of difficulty trying to remember which type of validity does what, but your example of testing typing proficiency will help me remember this idea. In addition, I think you do a really nice job explaining the difference between convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity. It is so important in the mental health field that our psychological assessments actually measure what they are intended to. If our assessments have a high validity coefficient with an unrelated domain, then we begin to run into problems. Certain questions may need to be added or omitted, or questions may need to be worded differently.

      Reply

  19. Wendy Fernandes
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 22:11:25

    In the mental health field, criterion-related validity relates to how much an instrument or assessment can predict a particular outcome. The two types of criterion-related validity are concurrent validity and predictive validity. With concurrent validity, there is little time between when the instrument is administered and when the results are known. With predictive validity, the results may only be known weeks or months after the assessment was conducted. This sort of validity where behaviour may be able to be predicted is very important in mental health, especially in cases where individuals may harm themselves or others. Particularly, an instrument that can predict suicidal tendencies and behaviours would be essential for a counselor to assist their client.

    Both convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity are comparing one instrument to another instrument. Where they differ is that with convergent evidence the two instruments should be favourably linked (the validity coefficient should be high), whereas with discriminant evidence there should be little association between the instruments (a low validity coefficient). An example of convergent evidence validity would be if there was a new anxiety assessment, and the results of that assessment were like results of an established anxiety assessment. This parallel would be something that we would want because if the result was not comparable it would be an indication that something is incorrect with the new assessment. With discriminant evidence, if the anxiety assessment was used with a depression assessment and the correlation between the two assessments is high, it would be an indication that the assessment is potentially inaccurate.

    Reply

    • Brenna
      Sep 21, 2022 @ 23:21:17

      Hey, Wendy! I think you’re spot on in your explanation of the importance of criterion-evidence validity in the mental health field. If instruments can assist in predicting certain behaviors, it could literally save someone’s life. I thought your answer was super insightful. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

      Reply

    • Lucy Rising
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 11:28:52

      Hey Wendy, I think you made a really good point in underscoring the importance of the predicative element of criterion related validity in the mental health field. It is not just feelings we are attempting to measure with our assessments, but behaviors as well. And if an assessment has a strong convergent evidence validity with a behavior (like the worry assessment and suicidality we were discussing in class) it is important for helpers to read and act accordingly to what that behavior may entail.

      Reply

  20. Brenna
    Sep 21, 2022 @ 23:11:49

    Criterion-related validity is described as an instrument that strongly correlates with criteria surrounding an outcome. In other words, CRV essentially serves as a predictor. I could see this being common/important for mental health assessments because it assists professionals in determining which instruments are most suitable to achieve the highest likelihood of a certain outcome.

    Convergent evidence validity is when an instrument is related to other variables in which it is expected to be positively related. With CEV, a high validity coefficient indicates a higher validity. An example of this would be examining two separate instruments that measure depression, and seeing results of a high correlation among them, which is evidence that the instrument is measuring what it is intended to (i.e. depression symptoms) as the variables still relate to each other despite there being two separate instruments. This is important because when using an instrument to measure depression, it is important that variables are consistent with each other in order to have accuracy in results and therefore treat the patient’s symptoms accordingly.

    Discriminant evidence validity is when an instrument shows little to no relation to other variables, which is expected with DEV. With DEV, a low validity coefficient is expected, as that is evidence that one instrument is not correlated with other measured variables. An example of this would be if an instrument that measures depression does not relate with the variables in an instrument that measures anxiety. This discrimination is important as depression and anxiety can sometimes overlap in symptoms, which could lead to misdiagnosis and/or misdirection in treatment.

    Reply

    • Esther Konadu
      Sep 22, 2022 @ 16:41:59

      Hi Brenna,

      You pose a great example of what the real-world clinical impacts of discriminate evidence validity would look like. At the end of the day, having good discriminate evidence validity saves clients from unnecessary complications when it comes to getting a diagnosis & receiving the treatment that they need. Even though the term sounds more complicated than it should, it has its usefulness!

      Reply

    • Wendy Fernandes
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 22:06:29

      Hi Brenna, I think your impressions on the importance of mental health professionals using the correct assessments to use for clients is spot-on. Using an incorrect assessment and then using those results as the basis for treatment could be detrimental to the client. Also, with the example of depression and anxiety assessments, I wondered about what does happen with depression and anxiety assessments since they do overlap in symptoms and the assessments should have low discriminant validity. Is it at this point that a client would be diagnosed with two disorders? Or are the assessments themselves questioned? Or does the mental health professional go down another path?

      Reply

  21. Chandal Powell
    Sep 22, 2022 @ 01:51:08

    Criterion related validity evaluates how a test or instrument will accurately predict an outcome or behavior in comparison to another well-established test or instrument. When compared the results should be like the established instrument to illustrate that it is accurate and valid. The example is given of a job applicant taking a performance test during the interview process. If the test results accurately predict how well the employee will perform on the job, the test is said to have criterion related validity. This type of validity is important for mental health assessments because it means that an instrument is supplying the correct information. It is measuring what it is supposed to which will aid in supplying a diagnosis and an effective treatment plan for a client. The thought is that without criterion related validity the application or usefulness of a test or instrument may not be particularly useful.

    The difference between convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity is that convergent looks at two measures that should be evaluating the same thing and shows that these two measures are related or correlates. Discriminant does the opposite; it shows that two measures that do not evaluate the same thing are unrelated. For example, you are researching depression in college students; to measure depression, you use two measurements: a survey and participant observations. If the scores from your two measurements are close enough, they converge which shows that they are measuring the same thing. If they do not converge, this could indicate that they are measuring different things such as anger and depression or self-worth and depression but not just depression.

    Reply

  22. Vic White
    Sep 22, 2022 @ 14:37:41

    On occasion we need instruments that can predict behaviour and that is what criterion-related validity does, it is an instrument that was developed to predict or identify behaviour in the future, but also can be used in the present. It looks at the instrument as a whole and if it is a good predictor. An example being if an individual gets a certain score on a scale, how well does that predict the likelihood of suicide. This type of validity is important for mental health assessments because predict how a client is going to behaviour in the future and knowing this important can aid the process of a treatment plan for clients and for a diagnosis.
    Convergent evidence validity exists “when an instrument is related to another instrument and theoretically should be positively related.” With the example of creating a new instrument to measure anxiety. If you looked at the new instrument and then looked at an already established and used anxiety instrument you would want a high correlation coefficient because this means your instrument is measuring what it is supposed to measure and it is similar to other instruments that are measuring the same thing. If the coefficient came back as low, then that indicates there is a problem with the new instrument and the possibility of it having a flaw.
    Discriminant evidence validity is the opposite of convergent in that we want a low correlation coefficient. Discriminant validity exists “when an instrument is not correlated with variables from which it should differ.” An example being that depression does not correlate much with a generalised anxiety disorder giving a low correlation coefficient because they are both measuring different things. If it came back as having a high coefficient, then this would indicate a problem because it means that depression is not being discriminated against generalised anxiety.
    In conclusion, the main difference between convergent and discriminant evidence validity is if we want a high or a low correlation coefficient. The coefficient indicates if it is convergent or discriminant validity and can also indicate problems if we receive a high coefficient when we expect a low and vice versa.

    Reply

  23. Ariannah Zagabe
    Sep 22, 2022 @ 16:05:31

    My understanding of Criterion-Related validity is that it focuses on the entirety of the instrument that’s used to measure rather than just the individual items. It helps with determining how accurate a measure is when predicting an outcome. This type of validity is important for mental health assessments because it can be used to predict behavior (when diagnosing or treating a disorder).

    The difference between Convergent evidence validity and Discriminant evidence validity is Convergent evidence validity involves an instrument that relates to other variables (a positive correlation) while Discriminant evidence validity involves an instrument that does not correlate with variables. For example, when dealing with Convergent evidence validity if level of depression was being measured, two assessments would be made (an observation as well as a sample survey) and if the scores from both assessments have a positive correlation it proves the validity of the assessments. However, with Discriminant evidence validity you would not be seeking a positive correlation between the assessments.

    Reply

    • Gitte Lenaerts
      Sep 22, 2022 @ 17:19:02

      Hi Ariannah, You mentioned in your post that criterion-related validity is important within mental health assessments as it can be used to predict behavior. This is very important to have so counselors can diagnose and further treat a disorder, as you shared. Without using criterion-related validity, we are putting clients at risk of negatively affecting their treatment and mental health as a whole. This can be said for convergent and discriminant evidence validity as well. These are important steps to take with curating assessments and making sure the items within the assessment are accurate. Good post!

      Reply

    • Megan VanDyke
      Sep 23, 2022 @ 07:38:09

      Hi, Ariannah. I like that you emphasized how, when it comes to criterion-related validity, we want the whole instrument to be related to the outcome criterion, not just individual items. This is important when there may be an item or two that would better measure a different criterion. At the end of your post, you note that with discriminant evidence validity, you would not be seeing a positive correlation between two assessments. What would you be seeking, and could you give an example?

      Reply

  24. Maria Nowak
    Sep 22, 2022 @ 17:31:47

    Criterion -related validity determines how well the assessment will predict a particular outcome. This particular type of validity is significant for mental health assessments because if it does not focus on a specific outcome, there will not be a reliable assessment. It will not give the assessor accurate information that will help the client be diagnosed or allow them to progress. For example, say we are measuring academic performance based on scores on MCAS. If the score on what is proficient is constantly changing, it would not be reliable. Therefore we would not be able to predict the outcome.
    Convergent evidence validity is when the evidence is positively related to other variables measuring the same thing. For example, if someone used two different instruments to measure anxiety, there should be a positive correlation of the outcome. Discriminant evidence validity would determine that there is a negative correlation between two different instruments measuring the same thing. For example, if someone used two different instruments to measure anxiety but it produced a negative correlation, it is likely the instrument was not reliable.
    An assessment where convergent and discriminant evidence validity would be significant is if an assessor is using a self produced anxiety instrument but wants to be sure it is not positively related to a well known depression instrument. In this case we would want there to be discriminant evidence. If an anxiety instrument is positively correlated with a depression instrument, we would not be able to decipher if they are suffering from depression or anxiety.

    Reply

    • Vic White
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 14:04:56

      Hi Maria,

      Your discussion on criterion related validity was good! And your discussion of convergent evidence was clear too, when talking about comparing two anxiety instruments with one another. However, my understanding is that when looking at discriminate evidence, we want to be comparing two different things to ensure they don’t correlate. An example being comparing an anxiety instrument with a depression instrument to make sure they aren’t measuring the same thing.

      To me your discriminate evidence reads as when there is a problem/flaw with convergent and it came back as a low correlation when we want a high correlation. However, the example you gave at the end of your post about not being able to decipher between a client suffering from anxiety or depression was a good example of discriminate evidence because of the positive correlation we would see between an anxiety instrument and depression instrument.

      Reply

    • Alysha Benoit
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 14:37:29

      Hi Maria,

      Great job explaining your understanding of criterion-related validity, convergent-evidence validity and discriminant-evidence validity. I think you hit the nail on the head about the importance of criterion-related validity in that it is not just important for predicting future outcomes in assessments but that it is important in diagnosing a client and allowing them the room they need to progress. For example, with greater criterion-related validity, the greater predictor there will be for future outcomes and behaviors. When the predictions for these things are greater and more reliable and valid, a client can be better assessed and helped by the counselor.

      Reply

  25. Magdalen Paul
    Sep 22, 2022 @ 17:34:56

    Criterion-related validity is a traditional type of validity that examines the overall instrument as a whole, as opposed to an individual item/question. This form of validity helps indicate the extent to which an instrument is able to predict one’s behavior. When examining criterion-related validity, we are examining the extent to which an instrument is related to a specific outcome criterion. This type of validity is particularly common and important for mental health assessments because we need to be able to determine what course of action would be most helpful to a client, especially when there is potential danger involved, as could be the case when an instrument has low criterion-related validity. If an instrument is not a good predictor of future behavior, it may not be useful. For example, personality tests with high criterion-related validity should yield evidence for how one would be expected to act in future situations, but only with high validity would you be able to confidently plan treatment to help this person. Consider suicidality as well—if an instrument has low criterion-related validity, the likelihood of an individual engaging in suicidal behaviors may not be accurately understood post-assessment. Situations such as this can turn into a crisis if the clinician is not using an instrument that can produce a timely prediction for something that may cause irreparable harm.

    When comparing an instrument with another instrument, convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity become relevant. With convergent evidence, this points to an instrument being related to other variables to which it theoretically should be related. A high validity score is desired, because if you were to design your own depression assessment, you would want to compare yours to another already well-established depression assessment. In comparing these 2 assessments, you would want a strong correlation level, because you would want a reputable assessment to be closely related to your instrument in such a way that demonstrates theoretical consistency. Conversely, with discriminant evidence, this points to an instrument not being correlated with variables that it should differ from. A low validity score is desired, because if you were to design your own depression assessment, you would not want your instrument to resemble or correlate with an intelligence assessment. You would want your depression inventory to theoretically align with depression, not so much with intelligence. Again, this relates back to the importance of comparing your instrument with already well-established instruments in order to determine how well your instrument measures what it is intended to measure.

    Reply

    • Alysha Benoit
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 14:19:20

      Hi Maggie, I like how you described that criterion-related validity is a concept that has to do with the whole picture of an assessment or instrument rather than bits and pieces of it. This helped me establish a better and more accurate depiction of what criterion-related validity is. Although the individual aspects of an assessment are also important to validity in their own way (content-related validity or evidence based on test content), the overall validity of a test is important in determining/predicting the outcome of future behaviors, scores, etc. I also think you make an important point about the importance of criterion-related validity when you use suicidality as an example. If a test does not yield strong evidence of criterion validity then it will not yield strong evidence in predicting future outcomes. Suicidality is an important issue that relies heavily on the future predictions and outcomes of an assessment a counselor might be using.

      Reply

    • Ariannah Zagabe
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 15:15:37

      Hey Maggie,

      I like the example that you used for discriminant evidence. I didn’t include one in my post because I couldn’t think of a good enough example that would make sense, however yours is a perfect example. You wouldn’t want a depression assessment and an intelligence assessment to correlate but rather an assessment aligned with depression. It’s great that you pointed out how important it is to compare your instrument with already well-established instruments.

      Reply

    • Chandal Powell
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 16:59:17

      Hi Magdalen,
      After reading your definition of criterion-related validity I have gained a clearer understanding of the concept. This helps to emphasize the importance of criterion related validity to mental health assessments. Our goal as prospective counselors/ therapist is to always aim for the best possible outcome/plan of treatment for the clients we will serve. Criterion-related validity will certainly aid with this as we can have more confidence in the reliability and validity of the assessment we will use. I also liked the fact that in differentiating between convergent and discriminant evidence validity you highlighted the importance of comparing your instrument with an already well-established instrument to ensure that your instrument measures what it is intended to measure. Good post!

      Reply

  26. Alysha Benoit
    Sep 22, 2022 @ 17:48:36

    1. Criterion-related validity or instrument-criterion validity is the concept that a person uses a specific type of instrument in (in assessment for example) in a way that measures and predicts their performance in the future rather than using the instrument to compare scores within groups and samples. A good way of understanding an instrument’s criterion-related validity is asking whether the instrument is a comprehensive predictor of future behavior, performance, or outcome scores. This type of validity is especially important to the mental health field because using instruments as a way of predicting future behavior, feelings, thoughts, and emotions (as scores) is essential to assessing clients and more importantly, if a treatment/intervention is working for them. For example, if a client is suicidal and a clinician is using the Patient Health Questionarre (PHQ-9) along with the Suicide Cognitions Scale (SCS), there is going to be strong criterion-related validity in that those tests are used as predictors of future behaviors, thoughts, and cognitions related to suicide. Tests with greater criterion-related validity have a greater possibility of being helpful in predicting whether a treatment has efficacy and effectiveness for a client.

    2. Convergent evidence validity and discriminant evidence validity are distinct in that convergent evidence exists when there is a positive relationship/correlation between two or more instruments or variables and discriminant evidence exists when two or more instruments or variables are not related. As in the name, “convergent” (to be close together and closely related), infers that an instrument measuring a variable has convergent evidence validity if another instrument measures the same or similar variable. The opposite is true in discriminant evidence validity in that the variables being measured are distinct from another or they are different. For example, a hypothetical instrument that is assessing a client’s mood and an instrument that is assessing a client’s intelligence would hypothetically have strong discriminant evidence validity because these two variables of mood and intelligence would not have a positive correlational relationship in assessment. On the other hand, if an instrument was assessing a client’s mood alongside another type of instrument assessing mood, the two would theoretically have strong convergent validity because are measuring the same variable (mood).

    Reply

    • Maria Nowak
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 13:27:33

      Hi Alysha!
      Your discussion did a great job of making me understand what criterion-related validity is and the difference between the two types of evidence. It was also significant how you discussed actual assessments like the (PHQ-9) and SCS. It is true that those would produce a strong correlation coefficient. It is so important to understand these concepts because improper use of assessments can lead to a downward spiral for a client. Imagine giving the wrong medication to a client based on an unreliable assessment?

      Reply

    • Ariannah Zagabe
      Sep 24, 2022 @ 15:17:34

      Hi Alysha,

      Your explanation on criterion-related validity is excellent. Criterion-related validity is important in the mental health field when it comes to estimating/predicting future behavior. I like how you used the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) along with the Suicide Cognitions Scale (SCS) as examples. I feel like those examples are a great way to describe how using assessments like the ones you mentioned can help determine a proper treatment for a client.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Adam M. Volungis, PhD, LMHC

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 88 other followers
%d bloggers like this: