Four Preoccupations of Quantitative
a. Face validity - "this measure reflects the content of the concept in
Research
Lesson 2
To further deepen our understanding of quantitative research, we
should look into the preoccupations of quantitative researchers. What
are the things that they are concerned of? What are the areas or
elements that matter to them? Bryman (2008) identified four
preoccupations of quantitative researchers, namely, measurement,
causality, generalization and replication.
1. Measurement
Measurement is an important factor in quantitative research,
which is why reliability and validity are embedded in its methodology.
Reliability speaks of consistency of a measure of a concept.
According to Bryman (2008), measurement is reliable if it contains the
following factors:
a. Stability - This means there is "very little variation over time
in the results obtained if it is administered to a group and
readministered again."
b. Internal reliability - This means "consistency of the scale or
index, whether respondents' scores on any one indicator tend to
be related to their scores on the other indicators."
c. Inter-observer consistency - This means "being cautious of the
possibility of the inconsistency of observers when a great deal
of subjective judgment is involved, such as in recording of
observations or translating of data into categories and when
more than one observer is in
Validity, on the other hand, refers to the issue of whether an
indicator that is developed to measure a concept really gauges that
concept. Bryman (2008) identified ways to establish validity and these
include: face validity, concurrent validity, predictive validity, construct
validity and convergent validity.
question. This may be undertaken by asking other people whether the
measure seems to be getting at the concept that is the focus of
attention."
Example: "People with expertise or experience in a certain field might
be asked to act as judge to determine whether on the face of it, the
measure seems to reflect the concept concerned."
b. Concurrent validity - "employs a criterion on which cases are
known to differ and that is relevant to the concept in question."
Example: "A new criterion measure of job satisfaction can be
absenteeism. To establish the concurrent validity of this measure of
job satisfaction, we might look into how people who are satisfied with
their job are less likely to be absent from work. If a lack of
correspondence was found, such as there being no difference in levels
of job satisfaction among frequent absentees, doubt might be cast on
whether our measure is really addressing job satisfaction.
c. Predictive validity - "uses a future criterion measure rather than a
contemporary one."
Example: "The researcher would take future levels of absenteeism as
the criterion against which the validity of a new measure of job
satisfaction would be examined. The difference of this from concurrent
validity is that a future rather than a simultaneous criterion measure is
employed" (Bryman 2008)
d. Construct validity - "deduces hypothesis from a theory that is
relevant to the concept."
Example: "Drawing upon the impact of technology on the experience
of work, the researcher might anticipate that people who are satisfied
with their job are less likely to work on routine jobs; those who are not
satisfied are more likely to work on routine jobs. We could investigate
this theoretical deduction by examining the relationship between job
satisfaction and job routine.
Caution: (1) Either the theory or the deduction made from it might be Indicate if the worksheet is homework or seatwork by checking the
misguided; or (2) the measure of job routine could be an invalid box.
measure of that concept." Homework Seatwork
e. Convergent Validity - "the validity if a measure ought to be gauged
WORKSHEET # 3
by comparing it to measures of the same concept developed through Operationalize the five ways of establishing validity by giving each an
other measures," example.
Example: "If we developed a questionnaire measure of how much time
managers spend on various activities, we might examine its validity by
tracking a number of managers and using a structured observation Ways of Establishing Validity Examples
schedule to record how much time is spent in various activities and
their frequency."
2. Causality Face Validity
Most quantitative research is concerned about explanation.
They are strong on explaining why things happen in certain ways.
Hence they are interested not only about the phenomenon of things but
also the causes of it (Bryman 2008). In connection with causality, you
will encounter the concept of dependent and independent variables Concurrent Validity
which will be highlighted in Lesson 3 of this chapter.
3. Generalization
Quantitative researchers are usually apprehensive about
findings that cannot be generalized. They pursue findings that can be
Predictive Validity
generalized beyond the margins of a certain context in which the
research was undertaken. This area of concern reveals itself in social
survey research, on the attention that is often given to the question of
how one can create a representative sample (Bryman 2008)
4. Replication Construct Validity
Replication is the ability to repeat an important component of
an activity. The attempt to make the procedures highly explicit is an
intervention to make an experiment capable of replication. However,
according to Bryman (2008), "replication is not a high-status activity
in natural and social sciences." It is, most of the time, considers as not Convergent Validity
capable of sustaining interest. In social sciences, it is difficult to
warrant that the settings in a replication are those that are referred to in
the original study.

Factors Threatening Validity
Lesson 2
A researcher would try his best to achieve a valid and reliable
research study. Unfortunately, there are things that sometimes are
beyond the control of the researcher that may threaten the validity of
the study. Let us analyze each one of them.
1. History- A valid observation is conducted several times to
eliminate error. There might be events that occur within the
period of observation which affect the measurement.
Example: A group of high school researcher tried to
investigate if x-ray film fixer can trap energy from the sun. The amount
of energy generated by exposing the x-ray film fixer was measured.
Exposure to sunlight if the set-ups were done for five days from 10:00
A.M. to 3:00 PM. for one week. For one week, the intensity of the sun
differs and there was days that were raining. So the measurement of
energy produced was not also consistent.
2. Maturation - The process if maturing which takes place in the
individual during the duration of the experiment which is not a
result of specific events but of simply growing older, growing
more tired or similar changes.
Example: The perception if one person changes due to
maturation. What is acceptable today might not be acceptable
tomorrow. This might be the case especially for long term research.
3. Measuring Instruments - changes in instruments, calibration
of instruments, observers, or scores may cause changes in the
measurements.
Example: In the conduct of study especially laboratory
experiments by students, changing of laboratory instrument may cause
little change in the result. If today, you use spring balance which is
new in measuring the force tomorrow you use another spring balance
which is not new, the quality of spring of the two balances may have
an effect on what is being measured.
4. Statistical Regression - Groups are chosen because of extreme
scores of measurements; these scores or measurements tend to
move toward the mean with repeated measurements even
without an experimental variable.
Example: Managers who are performing poorly are selected
for training. Their average post-test scores will be higher than their
pre-test scores because of statistical regression, even if no training
were given.
5. Differential Selection - Different individuals or groups would
have different previous knowledge or ability which would
affect the final measurement if not taken into account.
Example: A group of subjects who have viewed a TV program
is compared with a group who has not. There is no way of knowing
that the groups would have been equivalent since they were not
randomly assigned to view the TV program
.
6. Experimental Mortality - The loss of subjects from
comparison groups could greatly affect the comparisons
because of unique characteristics of those subjects. Groups to
be compared need to be the same after as before the
experiment.
Example: This is very common especially if you are using
animals in your study. Sudden death of test organism due to reasons
which is beyond your control will force you to get a new organism.
This decision will have an impact to result of the study
Indicate if the worksheet is homework or seatwork by checking the
box.
Homework Seatwork
WORKSHEET # 3
What to do:
Each of these research scenarios has at least one feature that might
reduce its validity. Read through each scenario and identify the
problematic areas. Why is it a problematic area?
1. Patricia is doing an observational study of shopping behavior. She
positioned herself outside a shop that sells both women's and
men's clothing. She observed how long a male or female look at
the windows display before entering a shop.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2. Irene is conducting an experimental study about memory. She has
recruited a sample of students from top section. She then gave
them a word learning task. They first di the task while listening to
music and then in silence. She equates a memory in terms of the
number words recalled from the learning task.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
3. A researcher decides to test whether cooperative group testing
(CGT) makes an increase in learning among college students. The
researcher uses his two classes if EDR 751 to test whether CGT
increases learning. Class A is the control group and they receive
no special treatment. Class B will use CGT. The researcher tells
class B that he expects CGT to increase learning, and that he will
try it on them. He also tells class A that class B is trying a new
method of teaching which is expected to increase learning, and
that they will be used as a comparison group to see if they learn
less.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
4. A researcher wishes to know whether the dynamic or static
assessment will increase teachers' expectations for mentally -
handicapped (intellectually - challenged) children. The researcher
randomly assigns the teachers to two groups. The first group of
teachers views the child via a dynamic assessment procedure.
Following this viewing, both groups of teachers view the child via
a static assessment. After this viewing, both sets if teachers
complete an instrument designed to measure the teachers'
expectations of the child's likely academic performance.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

5. A research is interested in determining whether Cooperative

Group Testing (CGT) really increases academic performance
(achievement). In each of the following studies, he uses a
Solomon Four Group design. In the first study, he looks at the
effect of CGT on final exam scores in educational research
classes. In the second study he looks at final class scores in
several calculus classes to see if CGT had an effect. In a third
study, which takes much longer, he looks gains on Iowa Test of
Basic Skills for middle school students who used CGT for one
year versus those who did not use CGT.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________