Validity | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 4
- 20 min read
Updated: 6 days ago
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
Validity concerns whether psychological research measures what it intends to measure and whether its conclusions are justified. This Validity A-Level Psychology revision page explains face, concurrent, ecological and temporal validity, together with ways of assessing and improving each type. You will also learn how validity applies across experiments, observations, questionnaires, interviews and other methods. These skills are essential when designing research, evaluating evidence and deciding whether findings provide an accurate account of behaviour.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define validity in psychological research.
Explain face, concurrent, ecological and temporal validity.
Explain how each type of validity may be assessed.
Identify possible threats to validity in unfamiliar investigations.
Suggest practical ways of improving validity.
Evaluate the validity of research procedures, measurements and conclusions.
Revision Notes 📚
What is validity?
Validity is the extent to which an investigation or measurement assesses what it is intended to assess and supports an appropriate conclusion.
A valid study should provide an accurate investigation of the research aim.
Validity may concern:
Whether a test measures the intended psychological concept.
Whether an operational definition represents the variable being studied.
Whether differences between conditions were caused by the independent variable.
Whether participants behaved naturally.
Whether findings apply to everyday situations.
Whether findings remain applicable over time.
Validity is relevant across all psychological research methods.
Why is validity important?
Psychologists often investigate concepts that cannot be observed directly, such as:
Memory.
Stress.
Concentration.
Motivation.
Aggression.
Attitudes.
Researchers must decide how each concept will be measured.
For example, a psychologist investigating concentration might record:
The number of correct responses on an attention task.
The time taken to complete a visual-search task.
The number of occasions on which a participant looks away from their work.
Each measure represents concentration in a different way. The researcher must decide whether the chosen measure provides an appropriate assessment of the intended concept.
Clear definitions of manipulated and measured variables are therefore central to validity.
Reliability and validity
Reliability and validity are related but different.
Reliability | Validity |
Concerns consistency | Concerns whether the intended variable is being measured |
Asks whether a procedure produces dependable results | Asks whether those results represent the intended concept |
May be assessed over time or between observers | May be assessed through face, concurrent, ecological or temporal validity |
Can be improved through standardisation and clearer scoring | Can be improved through appropriate measures, control and realistic procedures |
A measure can be reliable without being valid.
For example, two observers may consistently agree that a participant looked at a worksheet for eight minutes. The recording may therefore be reliable. However, looking at the worksheet may not provide a valid measure of concentration because the participant could be thinking about something unrelated.
A measure that is highly inconsistent is unlikely to provide a dependable assessment of a psychological concept. However, consistency alone does not prove validity.
You can revise this distinction in the consistency of psychological measurements.
.Types of validity required by AQA
The four named types of validity are:
Face validity
Concurrent validity
Ecological validity
Temporal validity
Each type asks a different question about the quality of the research.
Type of validity | Main question |
Face validity | Does the measure appear to assess the intended concept? |
Concurrent validity | Does the measure agree with an established measure of the same concept? |
Ecological validity | Do the findings apply to everyday behaviour and settings? |
Temporal validity | Do the findings remain applicable across time? |
Face validity
Face validity is the extent to which a measure appears, on the surface, to measure what it is intended to measure.
It is based on an examination of the content of the measure.
For example, a questionnaire intended to measure examination confidence should contain questions that appear relevant to confidence about examinations.
Items might concern:
Confidence when preparing for an examination.
Confidence when answering examination questions.
Expectations about examination performance.
A questionnaire containing questions about favourite subjects, travel to college and preferred lesson length would appear to have poor face validity as a measure of examination confidence.
Measuring face validity
Face validity can be assessed by examining the measurement and judging whether its content appears relevant to the intended concept.
This examination could be carried out by:
The researcher.
Another psychologist.
A person with appropriate knowledge of the subject being investigated.
Members of the population for whom the measure is intended.
The reviewer would inspect:
The wording of questions.
The content of tasks.
The response options.
The scoring procedure.
The connection between each item and the intended concept.
If the content appears appropriate, the measure may be judged to have good face validity.
Example of assessing face validity
A psychologist designs a questionnaire to measure stress caused by academic work.
The questionnaire contains the following items:
How often have you felt unable to manage your academic workload during the past seven days?
How often have you worried about completing academic deadlines during the past seven days?
How many hours did you spend watching television yesterday?
What is your favourite school subject?
A reviewer may judge that items one and two have face validity because they appear relevant to academic stress.
Items three and four do not appear to measure academic stress directly and may reduce the face validity of the questionnaire.
Strengths of face validity
It is straightforward to assess
Researchers can inspect the content before collecting data.
It can identify obvious problems
Irrelevant questions, unsuitable tasks or unclear scoring may be noticed early.
It can improve research materials
Feedback can help researchers remove unsuitable items and add content more closely connected to the research aim.
Limitations of face validity
It is based on judgement
Different reviewers may disagree about whether a question or task appears appropriate.
Appearance does not prove accuracy
A measure may look suitable but fail to measure the intended concept accurately.
A measure may appear too obvious
Questions that make the intended variable very clear could increase demand characteristics because participants may work out the purpose of the research.
Face validity is therefore useful but does not provide complete evidence that a measure is valid.
Improving face validity
Researchers may improve face validity by:
Removing irrelevant items.
Rewording unclear questions.
Including a suitable range of content.
Asking an appropriate reviewer to examine the measure.
Ensuring tasks relate directly to the research aim.
Piloting the measure with people similar to the intended participants.
Revising items that pilot participants interpret incorrectly.
Testing a measure before the full study is part of using a trial run to identify research problems.
Concurrent validity
Concurrent validity is the extent to which a new measure produces results that agree with an established measure of the same concept when both are used at approximately the same time.
The researcher compares:
Scores from the new measure.
Scores from an existing measure that is already used to assess the same variable.
If the two measures produce a similar pattern of scores, the new measure may have good concurrent validity.
Measuring concurrent validity
A researcher could assess concurrent validity using the following procedure:
Select an established measure of the intended psychological concept.
Give the new measure to a group of participants.
Give the established measure to the same participants at approximately the same time.
Record each participant’s score on both measures.
examine the relationship between the two sets of scores.
Judge whether participants who score highly on one measure also tend to score highly on the other.
A strong positive correlation between the two sets of scores would provide evidence of concurrent validity, assuming both measures are scored in the same direction.
Example of concurrent validity
A psychologist develops a new questionnaire measuring examination anxiety.
The same participants complete:
The new questionnaire.
An established questionnaire measuring examination anxiety.
If participants who receive high scores on the established measure also receive high scores on the new measure, this suggests good concurrent validity.
If the two sets of scores show little relationship, the new questionnaire may not be measuring the same concept as the established measure.
Interpreting a concurrent-validity correlation
Suppose three versions of a new questionnaire are compared with an established measure.
Questionnaire version | Correlation with established measure |
Version A | +0.84 |
Version B | +0.37 |
Version C | +0.06 |
Version A shows the strongest positive relationship with the established measure. It therefore provides the strongest evidence of concurrent validity.
This conclusion assumes that a high score has the same meaning on both measures.
The analysis of relationships between scores connects with interpreting relationships between co-variables.
Strengths of concurrent validity
It uses a direct comparison
The new measure is assessed against an existing measure of the same concept.
It produces evidence based on participant scores
The decision is not based only on whether the measure appears suitable.
It can identify unsuitable items or scoring
A weak relationship may indicate that the new measure requires revision.
Limitations of concurrent validity
The established measure may have weaknesses
Agreement with an existing measure is useful only if that measure provides an appropriate assessment of the concept.
The measures may use different formats
Differences in wording, tasks or response scales could affect the relationship between scores.
Temporary participant factors may affect both measures
Tiredness, mood or understanding of the instructions may influence performance.
A correlation does not show that the measures are identical
A strong relationship suggests agreement but does not prove that both measures assess the concept perfectly.
Improving concurrent validity
Researchers may:
Choose a suitable established measure of the same concept.
Administer both measures under comparable conditions.
Give participants clear, standardised instructions.
Ensure the measures use clearly explained scoring systems.
Revise new items that do not appear to agree with the established measure.
Pilot the new measure before completing the full comparison.
Use an appropriate sample for whom both measures are suitable.
Face and concurrent validity compared
Feature | Face validity | Concurrent validity |
Main focus | Whether a measure appears appropriate | Whether a measure agrees with an established measure |
How it is assessed | Inspection and judgement | Comparison of two sets of participant scores |
Main strength | Quick identification of obvious problems | Provides evidence based on measured agreement |
Main limitation | Subjective judgement | Depends on the quality of the established measure |
Suitable use | Reviewing questions, tasks or scoring | Assessing a new test or questionnaire |
A measure may have high face validity but low concurrent validity.
For example, a questionnaire may contain questions that appear relevant to stress, yet its scores may show little agreement with an established stress measure.
Ecological validity
Ecological validity is the extent to which the findings of an investigation can be applied to everyday behaviour and settings.
A study may have low ecological validity when:
The setting is highly artificial.
The task is unlike anything participants normally do.
Behaviour is measured in an unusual way.
Participants respond differently because they know they are in a study.
The procedure removes important features of everyday life.
A study may have greater ecological validity when its setting, activities and behaviour resemble the situations to which the researcher wants to apply the findings.
Ecological validity and setting
Research conducted in a natural setting may have greater ecological validity because participants are behaving within a familiar environment.
However, a natural setting does not automatically guarantee ecological validity.
For example:
Participants may know they are being observed and change their behaviour.
The task may still be unusual.
The setting may be natural for some participants but unfamiliar to others.
The researcher may draw conclusions about situations very different from the one observed.
Similarly, a laboratory experiment does not automatically have poor ecological validity. A controlled setting can still use a realistic task that represents an everyday activity.
The entire procedure must be considered.
Example of ecological validity
A psychologist investigates eyewitness memory by asking participants to watch a short video and later answer questions.
The study may differ from a real eyewitness experience because:
Participants know that they are watching research material.
The event may have little personal importance.
Participants are physically safe.
The delay before questioning may be shorter.
The surrounding environment is controlled.
These differences may limit how confidently the findings can be applied to real eyewitnesses.
However, the controlled procedure may allow the researcher to manipulate variables carefully and measure recall consistently.
Measuring ecological validity
Ecological validity may be assessed by considering:
How closely the research setting resembles the intended everyday setting.
Whether the task resembles activities people normally perform.
Whether participants’ behaviour is likely to be natural.
Whether the findings occur when the research is repeated in a more realistic context.
Whether outcomes from the research agree with behaviour observed outside the original study.
Researchers may therefore compare findings from:
A controlled procedure.
A more natural or everyday setting.
Similar findings across the two situations would provide support for ecological validity.
Ecological validity in observations
A naturalistic observation may record behaviour as it occurs in an everyday environment.
This may improve ecological validity because:
The behaviour has not been created specifically for the study.
Participants may be completing familiar activities.
The social and environmental context is retained.
However, validity may still be weakened if:
Participants know they are being watched.
Behavioural categories do not represent the intended concept.
Observers influence the situation.
The setting is not representative of other everyday contexts.
Researchers therefore need both appropriate settings and clear methods of recording observable behaviour.
Ecological validity in questionnaires and interviews
A questionnaire or interview can ask participants about real experiences, but this does not automatically produce ecologically valid data.
Participants may:
Misunderstand questions.
Have difficulty remembering events.
Change their answers because they infer the research purpose.
Respond differently from how they behave in everyday situations.
Researchers can improve ecological validity by asking clear questions about meaningful and familiar situations.
Improving ecological validity
Researchers may improve ecological validity by:
Using tasks that resemble everyday activities.
Conducting research in a relevant natural setting where appropriate.
Using materials familiar to the participants.
Avoiding procedures that make behaviour unnecessarily artificial.
Reducing demand characteristics.
Ensuring the dependent variable represents meaningful everyday behaviour.
Replicating findings in different settings.
Avoiding conclusions that extend beyond the situations studied.
Limitations of improving ecological validity
Increasing realism may reduce control.
In a natural setting:
Extraneous variables may be harder to manage.
Participants may experience different conditions.
Behaviour may be difficult to measure consistently.
Replication may be more difficult.
Researchers must balance realism with the need for controlled and reliable procedures.
Temporal validity
Temporal validity is the extent to which research findings remain applicable across time.
Psychological behaviour may be affected by changes in:
Technology.
Education.
Social expectations.
Cultural practices.
Work patterns.
Communication.
Everyday environments.
A finding produced at one point in time may not apply in the same way many years later.
Example of temporal validity
A psychologist investigates how students use printed revision materials.
The findings may have limited temporal validity if later students rely much more heavily on digital resources.
The original result may accurately represent the participants at the time, but changes in technology and study practices could limit its application to later groups.
Measuring temporal validity
Temporal validity may be assessed by:
Repeating an investigation at a later point in time.
Using participants from a later period.
Following a sufficiently similar procedure.
Comparing the later findings with the original findings.
Examining whether the same pattern remains.
Similar findings would support temporal validity.
Substantial differences might suggest that behaviour or the research context has changed.
Researchers may also compare evidence collected during different periods, provided the measures and procedures are sufficiently comparable.
Factors that may reduce temporal validity
Temporal validity may be reduced when a study depends heavily on:
Technology that is no longer used.
Historical social expectations.
Outdated educational or workplace practices.
Materials that have changed in meaning.
A temporary social situation.
A particular period of cultural experience.
Researchers should be cautious when applying older findings to modern contexts without considering these changes.
Improving temporal validity
Researchers may:
Replicate research at later points in time.
Use contemporary materials.
Recruit participants who reflect the population to which the findings will be applied.
Avoid relying unnecessarily on time-specific examples.
Report clearly when and where the data were collected.
Compare findings from different time periods.
Update measures where language or practices have changed.
Avoid assuming that an older finding will automatically remain applicable.
Updating materials must be done carefully. If the procedure changes substantially, differences between the results might be caused by the change in method rather than by the passage of time.
Ecological and temporal validity compared
Feature | Ecological validity | Temporal validity |
Main concern | Application to everyday settings and behaviour | Application across different time periods |
Main question | Does the finding reflect real-life behaviour? | Does the finding remain applicable over time? |
Possible assessment | Repeat or compare the study in a realistic setting | Repeat or compare the study at a later time |
Common threat | Artificial settings or tasks | Changes in society, technology or behaviour |
Possible improvement | Use realistic procedures and relevant settings | Replicate with contemporary participants and materials |
Validity in experiments
Experimental validity may be weakened if variables other than the independent variable affect the dependent variable.
For example, a researcher investigates whether background music affects memory:
The music condition is tested in the afternoon.
The silent condition is tested in the morning.
Participants in the music condition receive longer instructions.
Different word lists are used and one is more difficult.
Any difference in recall could be caused by:
Music.
Time of day.
Instructions.
Word-list difficulty.
The researcher cannot confidently attribute the result to the independent variable.
Improving validity in experiments
Researchers may:
Control relevant extraneous variables.
Standardise instructions and timing.
Use equivalent materials.
Randomly allocate participants where appropriate.
Counterbalance repeated measures conditions.
Use an appropriate control group or control condition.
Operationalise the dependent variable clearly.
Reduce demand characteristics and investigator effects.
Pilot the procedure.
These procedures are examined in methods for controlling unwanted influences.
Demand characteristics and validity
Demand characteristics may reduce validity when participants change their behaviour because they infer:
The research aim.
The expected result.
The comparison between conditions.
The behaviour the researcher appears to want.
For example, participants may try harder in the condition they believe should produce better performance.
The dependent variable would then reflect both the independent variable and the participants’ expectations.
Researchers may reduce this influence through:
Neutral instructions.
Fewer unnecessary clues.
An appropriate experimental design.
Standardised interaction.
Piloting the procedure.
Investigator effects and validity
Investigator effects may reduce validity if researchers:
Give more help in one condition.
Use different tones of voice.
Apply scoring rules differently.
Interpret ambiguous behaviour according to their expectations.
Treat participants differently.
Standardised procedures, objective scoring and investigator training can reduce these problems.
Both influences are covered in participant and researcher effects on findings.
Validity in observations
Validity in an observation depends on whether the recorded behavioural categories represent the intended behaviour.
For example, a researcher wants to measure cooperation and uses the category:
Behaves positively towards others.
This category is vague and may not provide a valid measure of cooperation.
Clearer categories might include:
Shares a task-related object without being asked.
Gives another participant information needed to complete the task.
Completes one stage of the activity jointly with another participant.
The researcher should also consider whether the presence of observers changes behaviour and whether the setting represents the context to which the findings will be applied.
Validity in questionnaires
A questionnaire may have low validity if:
Questions are unrelated to the intended concept.
Important aspects of the concept are omitted.
Items are ambiguous.
Participants infer the desired response.
Response options do not allow accurate answers.
The scoring system does not represent the intended variable.
The measure depends excessively on temporary circumstances.
Researchers may improve validity by:
Reviewing face validity.
Comparing scores with an established measure.
Rewriting unclear questions.
Including relevant content.
Defining time periods.
Providing appropriate response options.
Piloting the questionnaire.
Using neutral wording.
Validity in interviews
Interview validity may be reduced when:
Questions do not relate clearly to the aim.
Questions lead participants towards a particular response.
Interviewers react differently to different answers.
Participants misunderstand questions.
The coding system does not represent the meaning of responses.
Participants alter answers because they infer what the interviewer wants.
Researchers may improve validity by:
Preparing appropriate questions.
Using neutral wording.
Training interviewers.
Using agreed prompts.
Recording responses accurately.
Developing clear coding categories.
Piloting the interview schedule.
Validity in correlations
A correlation can be valid only if both co-variables are measured appropriately.
For example, a researcher investigates the relationship between sleep and concentration.
The researcher should clearly define:
How sleep is measured.
The time period being considered.
How concentration is measured.
The conditions under which concentration is tested.
If sleep is measured inaccurately or the concentration task does not assess concentration appropriately, the observed relationship may be misleading.
A correlation can show a relationship between co-variables, but it cannot establish that one caused the other. A causal conclusion would therefore go beyond what the method can validly demonstrate.
Validity in content analysis
A content analysis may have low validity if coding categories do not represent the concept being investigated.
For example, a researcher investigating aggression in television programmes records every occasion on which a character raises their voice.
Raised voices may occur during excitement, fear or celebration, so the category may not provide an appropriate measure of aggression.
Researchers should:
Define the intended concept clearly.
Use relevant coding categories.
Examine whether important behaviours are missing.
Pilot the coding system.
Compare interpretations between researchers.
Avoid conclusions broader than the recorded content.
Validity in case studies
A case study may provide detailed information about an individual, group or event.
Its validity depends partly on:
The accuracy of the information collected.
Whether different sources support the same interpretation.
Whether researcher expectations influence the account.
Whether conclusions remain grounded in the evidence.
Detailed information may provide a meaningful account of the case. However, findings from one case should not automatically be applied to all people.
Measuring validity
There is no single procedure for measuring every form of validity.
The method should match the type of validity being assessed.
Type of validity | How it may be assessed |
Face validity | Inspect whether items, tasks and scoring appear relevant to the intended concept |
Concurrent validity | Compare scores with an established measure used at approximately the same time |
Ecological validity | Examine realism and compare findings with behaviour in an everyday setting |
Temporal validity | Repeat or compare the investigation at a later point in time |
Researchers should explain the exact procedure rather than simply stating that they would “check validity”.
A process for improving validity
A researcher could use the following process:
State the research aim clearly.
Identify what each variable is intended to represent.
Operationalise the variables precisely.
Review whether the measures have face validity.
Compare a new measure with an established one where appropriate.
Identify and control relevant extraneous variables.
Reduce demand characteristics and investigator effects.
Select a suitable method and experimental design.
Pilot the materials and procedure.
Revise unclear questions, tasks or scoring.
Consider whether the procedure reflects everyday behaviour.
Repeat the research in other settings or at later times.
Report limitations and avoid conclusions that extend beyond the evidence.
These decisions form part of planning a complete psychological study.
Trade-offs when improving validity
A procedure designed to improve one aspect of validity may create another difficulty.
Greater control
More control may allow the researcher to isolate the independent variable. However, a highly controlled procedure may be less like everyday life.
Greater realism
A realistic setting may improve ecological validity. However, extraneous variables may be harder to manage.
Making the purpose clear
A measure may have obvious face validity. However, participants may also work out the research aim and change their responses.
Updating an older procedure
Modernising materials may improve temporal relevance. However, changing the procedure can make comparison with the original research more difficult.
Researchers must justify their choices rather than assuming that one procedure will maximise every aspect of validity.
Validity A-Level Psychology revision: applying knowledge
Validity questions often use an unfamiliar research scenario.
A strong application answer should:
Identify the relevant type of validity.
Refer directly to the study.
Explain why validity may be high or low.
Suggest a targeted improvement.
Avoid making claims beyond the evidence.
Example
A researcher uses a questionnaire called the Concentration Scale. It contains questions about participants’ favourite music, preferred food and travel to college.
A strong answer would be:
The questionnaire may have low face validity because the questions do not appear to assess concentration. The researcher should replace them with items that relate directly to maintaining attention and completing tasks.
Writing about concurrent validity
Weak answer:
Compare it with another test.
Stronger answer:
The same participants should complete the new concentration measure and an established concentration measure at approximately the same time. A strong positive relationship between the two sets of scores would support the concurrent validity of the new measure.
Writing about ecological validity
Weak answer:
The study is in a laboratory, so it is invalid.
Stronger answer:
Completing an unfamiliar memory task in a laboratory may not reflect how participants normally use memory in everyday situations. The researcher could use a more realistic task or repeat the investigation in a relevant everyday setting.
The stronger answer explains the connection between the procedure and everyday behaviour.
Writing about temporal validity
Weak answer:
The study is old.
Stronger answer:
The findings may have limited temporal validity because changes in technology have altered how people complete the activity being studied. Repeating the investigation with contemporary participants and materials would show whether the original pattern remains.
Reporting conclusions validly
Researchers should ensure that conclusions match:
The method used.
The variables measured.
The sample studied.
The setting.
The period in which data were collected.
For example:
A correlation should not be reported as proof of causation.
A study using one small sample should not automatically be applied to everyone.
A highly artificial task should not be assumed to represent all everyday behaviour.
An older finding should not automatically be treated as timeless.
Accurate conclusions are part of communicating the findings of psychological investigations.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Validity | The extent to which research measures what it intends to measure and supports an appropriate conclusion. | Define validity or evaluate the quality of an investigation. |
Face validity | The extent to which a measure appears to assess the intended concept. | Explain how questions, tasks or scoring could be inspected. |
Concurrent validity | The extent to which a measure agrees with an established measure of the same concept used at approximately the same time. | Explain how two sets of scores could be compared. |
Ecological validity | The extent to which findings apply to everyday behaviour and settings. | Evaluate the realism of a research task or environment. |
Temporal validity | The extent to which findings remain applicable across time. | Explain why research may need to be repeated at a later date. |
Operationalisation | Defining a variable precisely so it can be manipulated or measured. | Suggest a more appropriate measure of a psychological concept. |
Established measure | An existing method used to assess the same concept as a new measure. | Explain how concurrent validity could be assessed. |
Correlation | A measured relationship between two co-variables. | Interpret the agreement between a new and established measure. |
Extraneous variable | A variable other than the independent variable that may affect the dependent variable. | Identify an alternative explanation that weakens validity. |
Demand characteristics | Features of an investigation that allow participants to infer its purpose and change their behaviour. | Explain why responses may not reflect the intended variable. |
Investigator effects | Ways in which a researcher influences participants or the recording of data. | Identify researcher behaviour that may weaken validity. |
Reliability | The consistency of a procedure or measurement. | Distinguish consistency from whether the intended concept is measured. |
Standardisation | Keeping instructions, materials and procedures consistent. | Suggest one way of reducing unwanted differences. |
Replication | Repeating an investigation using the same or a closely comparable procedure. | Explain how ecological or temporal validity may be assessed. |
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Defining validity as consistency.
Why this is incorrect:Consistency describes reliability. Validity concerns whether the intended variable is measured and whether the conclusion is appropriate.
How to improve:Ask whether the research provides an accurate investigation of its stated aim.
Mistake: Assuming a reliable measure must be valid.
Why this is incorrect:A procedure may consistently measure something other than the intended concept.
How to improve:Evaluate reliability and validity separately.
Mistake: Saying face validity proves that a measure is accurate.
Why this is incorrect:Face validity is based on whether the measure appears appropriate. Appearance alone does not prove that it measures the concept successfully.
How to improve:Treat face validity as an initial judgement and consider further evidence.
Mistake: Describing concurrent validity as repeating the same test later.
Why this is incorrect:Repeating the same test later assesses test-retest reliability.
How to improve:Concurrent validity compares a new measure with an established measure of the same concept at approximately the same time.
Mistake: Claiming that every laboratory experiment has low ecological validity.
Why this is incorrect:Some laboratory tasks may represent meaningful everyday behaviour.
How to improve:Examine the realism of the setting, task, behaviour and intended application.
Mistake: Assuming that every naturalistic observation has high ecological validity.
Why this is incorrect:Participants may behave differently because they know they are observed, and the chosen categories may fail to represent the intended concept.
How to improve:Consider the entire procedure rather than only the location.
Mistake: Defining temporal validity as whether a test produces the same score twice.
Why this is incorrect:That refers to test-retest reliability. Temporal validity concerns whether findings remain applicable across different periods.
How to improve:Refer to changes in behaviour, society or context over time.
Mistake: Suggesting that researchers can improve temporal validity simply by changing all materials.
Why this is incorrect:Large changes may make comparison with the original study difficult.
How to improve:Update only what is necessary and explain how the later procedure remains comparable.
Mistake: Naming a type of validity without applying it to the scenario.
Why this is incorrect:Application marks require direct use of the information provided.
How to improve:Identify the relevant task, item, setting or time period and explain how it affects validity.
Mistake: Giving a vague improvement such as “make the study more realistic”.
Why this is incorrect:The answer does not explain what the researcher should change.
How to improve:Name a specific modification, such as using an everyday memory task or conducting the investigation in the setting to which the findings will be applied.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define face validity. (1 mark)
Question 2
What is meant by temporal validity? (2 marks)
Question 3
A psychologist develops a questionnaire intended to measure academic stress. Most of the questions concern students’ favourite subjects and hobbies.
Explain one problem with the face validity of the questionnaire. (2 marks)
Question 4
Explain how a psychologist could assess the concurrent validity of a new questionnaire measuring examination anxiety. (3 marks)
Question 5
A psychologist compares three versions of a new confidence questionnaire with an established measure.
Questionnaire version | Correlation with the established measure |
A | +0.18 |
B | +0.81 |
C | -0.04 |
Identify the version showing the strongest evidence of concurrent validity. Explain your answer. (2 marks)
Question 6
A researcher investigates helping behaviour by asking participants to press a button whenever they believe they would help a person shown in a photograph.
Explain one possible problem with the ecological validity of this procedure and suggest one improvement. (4 marks)
Question 7
A study of communication was conducted before the widespread use of smartphones and online messaging.
Explain why the findings may have limited temporal validity. Suggest how temporal validity could be assessed. (4 marks)
Question 8
A researcher investigates whether background noise affects concentration.
Participants in the quiet condition complete the task in the morning, while participants in the noise condition complete it in the afternoon. The researcher measures concentration by deciding how focused each participant appears.
Explain two threats to the validity of this investigation and suggest an improvement for each. (6 marks)
Question 9
Compare face validity and concurrent validity. In your answer, explain how each type can be assessed and identify one limitation of each. (6 marks)
Question 10
A psychologist plans to investigate whether working from home affects employee concentration.
Design procedures that would improve the validity of the investigation. In your answer, refer to:
Operationalisation of concentration
Control of extraneous variables
Demand characteristics and investigator effects
Ecological validity
Temporal validity
Piloting the procedure
(8 marks)
Comments