Search results

With the national emphasis on the use of evidence-based practices in educational settings, intervention research within the field of special education is being scrutinized. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has defined evidence-based practices primarily by research that is based on quantitative, experimental designs (i.e., RCT). Although the use of appropriate experimental designs has an important place in educational research, defining evidence-based practices based on research design alone is limiting. One critical aspect of research that has not received much attention is the importance of rigorous and precise measurement and systematic replication of research findings. The purpose of this chapter is to review issues surrounding measurement and its effect on validity in intervention research in the field of behavioral disorders. Specifically, we discuss how more rigorous measurement can positively influence the internal, external, construct, and social validity of research findings. A review of current trends in behavioral disorders intervention research is discussed as well as implications for future research.

Inspired by objective hermeneutics (Oevermann, 1984, 1996, 1999; Oevermann et al., 1979; Weller, 2010; Wohrab-Sahr, 2003) and qualitative validation (Adcock and Collier, 2001; Martis, 2006; Maxwell, 1992), the authors present this essay with the aim of proposing an objective hermeneutic approach to qualitative validation.

In order to develop this approach, the authors consider the contributions of Martis (2006) and Maxwell (1992) about theoretical–empirical validity, Adcock and Collier's propositions (2001) regarding the conceptualization and evaluation of phenomena through specific levels, tasks and stages of validation and the principles of objective hermeneutic interpretation proposed by Wohlrab-Sahr (2003).

Three main contributions are considered: theoretical–empirical validity (Martis, 2006; Maxwell, 1992); levels of validation – theoretical framework, systematized concept, indicators and results (Adcock and Collier, 2001); stages of validation – content validity, convergent validity and nomological validity (Adcock and Collier, 2001); and principles of objective hermeneutic interpretation – sequential interpretation, mental–experimental explanation of possible interpretations, preservation rule, literal character of interpretation, totality, reflection about knowledge used in the analysis and group of interpreters (Wohrab-Sahr, 2003). These contributions were related to establishing a framework that illustrates the proposed objective hermeneutic approach to qualitative validation.

The authors intend to offer to the scope of organization studies an alternative for validation, so that the voices of the researched can be heard. Furthermore, the authors seek to guide researchers as to how to respect and protect what is heard, in order to avoid any invasion of others' discourse.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the threats to quality in mixed methods accounting research, wherein quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined in data collection, analysis and interpretation.

The paper is framed according to three perspectives. The authors first synthesize the threats to validity and reliability in quantitative and qualitative parts of mixed methods research using the quality standards of each; they then introduce an integrative framework of mixed methods research quality by Teddlie and Tashakkori. Thereafter, they address the specific threats to quality that come to the fore when inferences from the quantitative and qualitative components of the study are combined to form meta‐inferences using a legitimation framework by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson.

The authors' analysis not only indicates a wide range of threats to the validity and reliability of mixed methods research in a range of categories, but also clarifies how the three perspectives described in this paper are linked and supplement each other.

Methodological research published in English over the last decade is emphasized to create an approach to assess mixed methods accounting research. The frameworks analyzed could still be studied in greater detail. Additional perspectives on the validity and reliability of mixed methods research could also be studied and developed.

This paper furthers our understanding of such new developments in methodological research, which may be of great importance to those conducting or evaluating empirical research.

Based on a comprehensive synthesis, this paper presents and analyzes theoretical frameworks potentially useful for scholars, students and practitioners. It focuses on both traditional and novel areas of validity and reliability in mixed methods research.

The “Mathews Committee” (Mathews, 1990) concluded that the research performance of the accounting discipline in Australia was weak. This paper is motivated by the need to improve the quality of accounting research in Australia and probably some other countries as well. It discusses three issues of crucial importance to research quality ‐ internal, external, and construct validity with the discussion illustrated with examples from existing accounting research. Internal validity is concerned with the ability to make causal statements from a piece of research. External validity is concerned with the ability to generalize from the research and construct validity is interested in the validity of the variables measured. Internal and external validity are discussed within the context of five common research designs. No one design is strong in both types of validity and tradeoffs between internal and external validity are necessary. When designing a new research project, the particular tradeoffs made should depend on the research objectives. The paper discusses how these choices might be made and how, if internal validity problems exist, they might be minimized. With construct validity, no tradeoffs are appropriate ‐ the researcher should attempt to eliminate this type of invalidity. The paper discusses how this might be done.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on concepts of validity and validation of social marketing research (SMR) with a view to enhancing SMR design and to inform SMR practice.

The paper defines and presents concepts of validity in a manner that sheds light on the unique issues facing SMR and sets the stage for future research.

The paper introduces an integrated model representing the variety of relationships that exist amongst a range of validity concepts that will assist methodological practice and increased rigor in future studies. The authors also introduce a matrix on research paradigms that can support the integration of a range of philosophical considerations to SMR research design.

The “quality” of research is being determined by those at the leading edge of their own paradigm without reference to other points of view. The authors argue that these sub‐processes of determining the validity of research outcomes are a challenge to the “discipline” of SMR and that SMR is at risk of becoming too narrowly focussed. Furthermore, the authors believe this is limiting SMR's potential to contribute to the broader domain of business or social research.

Social marketing is an interdisciplinary practice. The paradigms of research within the social marketing domain are still being argued and are the subject of much debate. The authors believe that the conceptual frameworks developed for this paper will enhance the practices of research in the field of social marketing.

The paper provides a new conceptual framework for those developing SMR. This framework aims to integrate others' theories and provide a simplified framework for consideration of issues of validation in SMR.

Case study research has been applied across numerous fields and provides an established methodology for exploring and understanding various research contexts. This paper aims to aid in developing methodological rigor by investigating the approaches of establishing validity and reliability.

Based on a systematic review of relevant literature, this paper catalogs the use of validity and reliability measures within academic publications between 2008 and 2018. The review analyzes case study research across 15 peer-reviewed journals (total of 1,372 articles) and highlights the application of validity and reliability measures.

The evidence of the systematic literature review suggests that validity measures appear well established and widely reported within case study–based research articles. However, measures and test procedures related to research reliability appear underrepresented within analyzed articles.

As shown by the presented results, there is a need for more significant reporting of the procedures used related to research reliability. Toward this, the features of a robust case study protocol are defined and discussed.

To describe the development of a survey instrument designed to measure consumer perceptions of the broadband adoption within the UK households.

A survey research approach was employed to achieve overall aim and following three objectives of this research: to identify initial items that may help to explain the broadband adoption behaviour and determine them employing an exploratory survey approach; to confirm the representativeness of items to a particular construct domain employing content validity approach; and finally, to test the instrument in order to confirm the reliability of items and construct validity.

The final outcome of the instrument development process that culminated from the confirmatory study was a parsimonious, 39‐item instrument, consisting of ten scales, all with acceptable levels of content validity, reliability and construct validity.

The developed instrument is relevant to both academic and practitioner communities who hold a particular interest in the study and management of broadband adoption from the household consumer perspective.

The most conspicuous contribution of the paper is to provide a reliable instrument that is fundamental to measure the household consumer's perceptions of adopting broadband internet.

Despite the advantages of the case study method, its reliability and validity remain in doubt. Tests to establish the validity and reliability of qualitative data are important to determine the stability and quality of the data obtained. However, there is no single, coherent set of validity and reliability tests for each research phase in case study research available in the literature. This article presents an argument for the case study method in marketing research, examining various criteria for judging the quality of the method and highlighting various techniques, which can be addressed to achieve objectivity, and rigorous and relevant information for planning to marketing actions. The purpose of this article is to invite further research by discussing the use of various scientific techniques for establishing the validity and reliability in case study research. The article provides guidelines for achieving high validity and reliability for each phase in case study research.

This paper focuses on the role of manufacturer brands for resellers within retail channels. This topic is important because of the strategic value of manufacturer brands and the increasing influence of resellers within channels of distribution. Much of the branding research emphasizes a customer-brand knowledge perspective; however, emerging perspectives suggest that brands are also relevant to other stakeholders including resellers. In contrast, channels research recognizes the manufacturer sources of market power, but does not consider the impact of manufacturer “push and pull” strategies within channels. Existing theoretical frameworks, therefore, do not address the reseller perspective of the brand. As a result, the research approach is a multi-method design, consisting of two phases. The first phase involves in-depth interviews, allowing the development of a conceptual framework. In the second phase, a survey of supermarket buyers on brands in several product categories tests this framework. Structural equation modeling analyzes the survey responses and tests the hypotheses. The structural model shows very good fit to the data with good construct validity, reliability, and stability. The findings show that manufacturer support, brand equity, and customer demand reflect the manufacturer brand benefits to resellers. A key contribution of this research is the development of a validated scale on manufacturer brand benefits from the point of view of a reseller. This research shows that the resources that relate to the brand, not just the brand name itself, create value for resellers in channel relationships.