Concurrent validity

<h2 id="alignment-with-classical-conceptions-of-validity">Alignment with classical conceptions of validity</h2>
<p>Concurrent validity and predictive validity are two types of <a href="/facts/Criterion_validity/fUy8MeKm">criterion-related validity</a>.  The difference between concurrent validity and predictive validity rests solely on the time at which the two measures are administered.  Concurrent validity applies to validation studies in which the two measures are administered at approximately the same time.  For example, an employment test may be administered to a group of workers and then the test scores can be correlated with the ratings of the workers' supervisors taken on the same day or in the same week.  The resulting correlation would be a concurrent validity coefficient. This type of evidence might be used to support the use of the employment test for future selection of employees.
</p><p>Concurrent validity may be used as a practical substitute for predictive validity. In the example above, predictive validity would be the best choice for validating an employment test, because using the employment test on existing employees may not be a strong analog for using the tests for selection. Reduced <a href="/facts/Motivation/uqLMfLKq">motivation</a> and <a href="/facts/Restriction_of_range/IAGr2noL">restriction of range</a> are just two possible biasing effects for concurrent validity studies.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:2" href="#fn:2"><sup>2</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:3" href="#fn:3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p>
<h2 id="contrasting-similar-terms">Contrasting similar terms</h2>
<p>Concurrent validity differs from <a href="/facts/Convergent_validity/oPThbnxm">convergent validity</a> in that it focuses on the power of the focal test to <i>predict</i> outcomes on another test or some outcome variable. Convergent validity refers to the observation of strong correlations between two tests that are assumed to measure the same construct. It is the interpretation of the focal test as a <i>predictor</i> that differentiates this type of evidence from convergent validity, though both methods rely on simple correlations in the statistical analysis.
</p>
<h2 id="see-also">See also</h2>
<ul><li><a href="/facts/Construct_validity/exjLSRJI">Construct validity</a></li>
<li><a href="/facts/Discriminant_validity/wdvsY7oR">Discriminant validity</a></li></ul>

<h2 id="references">References</h2>

<ol>
<li id="fn:1"><p>McIntire, S.A. and Miller, L.A., Foundations of Psychological Testing,2nd Edition, Sage Publishing Co., 2005. <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li>
<li id="fn:2"><p>Sackett, P.R.; Lievens, F.; Berry, C.M.; Landers, R.N. (2007). "A Cautionary Note on the Effects of Range Restriction on Predictor Intercorrelations" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (2): 538–544. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.538. PMID 17371098. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6436643_A_cautionary_note_on_the_effects_of_range_restriction_on_predictor_intercorrelations/file/d912f50dd667aa5857.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6436643_A_cautionary_note_on_the_effects_of_range_restriction_on_predictor_intercorrelations/file/d912f50dd667aa5857.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li>
<li id="fn:3"><p>Lane, D.M., Restriction of Range <a href="http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A68809.html" target="_blank">http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A68809.html</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li>
</ol>

Concurrent validity open-in-new

Concurrent validity