validity

(redirected from methodological quality)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical.

validity

[və′lid·əd·ē]
(mathematics)
Correctness; especially the degree of closeness by which iterated results approach the correct result.

validity

the extent to which a measure, indicator or method of data collection possesses the quality of being sound or true as far as can be judged. For example, if a psychological measure, such as an intelligence test, is considered to be valid, this means that it is thought to measure what it sets out to measure. If social survey observations are said to have produced valid data, then they are considered to be true reflection of the phenomenon being studied in the population being studied (e.g. projections of voting behaviour), and the survey method could be said to have validity. Compare RELIABILITY.

In practice, in sociology and the social sciences generally, the relation between indicators and measures on the one hand and the underlying concepts they are taken to represent is often contested (see OFFICIAL STATISTICS, MEASUREMENT BY FIAT).

References in periodicals archive ?
We used the method introduced by Furlan, Pennick, Bombardier, and van Tulder [28,29] for the evaluation of the risk of bias to examine the methodological quality of RCTs.
Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis.
All except one of the included studies were of high methodological quality. The studies included in the review incorporated some 75,298 adults and elderly.
The methodological quality assessment and risk of bias of the selected studies were independently evaluated by two authors (AGS and LSA).
The characteristics and methodological quality of studies are summarized in Table 1, with the first author's name, year of publication, characteristics of patients, asthma treatment, genotyping measurements, and outcome measurements.
Second, a sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding studies of potential high bias and poor reporting quality, that is to say, by excluding studies that did not receive a single "yes" score on Items 1-12 of the risk of bias and methodological quality indicators.
In this review, the methodological quality of the structure of articles was analyzed by Drummond's standard checklist (table 1).
The methodological quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers, using the tool proposed by Loney et al (20) indicated for the critical evaluation of cross-sectional studies.
A recent review also highlighted the need to improve the methodological quality of studies on the subject, allowing the development of guidelines for clinical practice (21).