(the process of developing, testing, and using the device).The findings can then be expressed in a 2x2 contingency table.From this table several important statistics can be derived.I would like to know about different methods for empirically validating such a framework.The earlier section of these notes on reducing errors and variation in epidemiological measurements touches briefly on the challenges of using observational techniques and the importance of assessing validity.Over the past 10 years or so the “Field” of “Mixed Methods Research” (MMR) has increasingly been exerting itself as something separate, novel, and significant, with some advocates claiming paradigmatic status.
Triangulation has its origins in attempts to validate research findings by generating and comparing different sorts of data, and different respondents’ perspectives, on the topic under investigation.
Respondent validation has sometimes been included in such processes, but it is an element that has not attracted significant attention from the MMR community.
The article argues that attention to respondent validation is a significant issue for methodological debate and that it should be an important aspect of the development of democratic participation in MMR.
I am currently working on developing a conceptual framework in the construction management field.
Streiner and Norman describe validation as a process of hypothesis testing: ‘Someone who scores high on this measure will also do well in situation A, perform poorly on test B, and will differ from those who score low on the scale for traits C and D.
Subjects are classified as positive or negative, first on the basis of the survey or new instrument and then according to the reference test.