Scale Validity

That's right - do you know what type of validity you're talking about here?

Would this be low generalizability then?

also, I just realized there were 50 reported female participants and only 10 males, which would extremely limit the generalizability here.

I believe it would be external validity, as the results can only applied to a particular population (ie, Western, female).

I was wondering should the discussion of the lack of validity of the scale be discussed here or the limitation session, because I've seen it being covered there but i think they are more appropriate to be posted here. Meanwhile, i will separate this session into external validity and internal validity, feel free to add stuff in:)

^I agree, I added a sentence about face validity in the internal validity part and started a short intro that tells people why we are doing this section, feel free to edit and add more stuff in!

Whoever mentioned the W.E.I.R.D. thing, could you add a definition of that in there for clarification? Not quite sure what that is.

Hi, thanks for getting this page going!

I just wanted to confirm that specific gender diagnosticity studies by definition do not attempt to imply causation; GD studies furthermore only apply to a particular group at a particular time, and are not meant to make broad inferences about whole populations (Lippa, 1990, p. 1053). Perhaps we could make this clear in one or the other of these discussions of validity.

Yes, external validity.

Excellent point, Kevin, and I think this would be the best place to point that out. We could talk about how this is only meant to be used for a particular group here, and note the generalizability limitations in the limitations section.

Yeah, that's what i thought too so I've mentioned that the causation effect can be neglected. Should we still talk about internal validity then? Because it seems to me that it doesnt apply to this particular GD study.

Sure, I will add in the definition of WEIRD :)

What you said about gender diagnosticity studies not implying causation/only applying to a particular group etc. sounds good to me. Should this be added to the external validity section?

I think that's been moved into the external validity/generalizability section!

Also, I've noticed that there are a handful of questions that have been repeated throughout the questionnaire. For example, the question " How much would you enjoy being a carpenter" is asked again in a different format. Is there anyway that we can check to see if there is a high correlation between these two questions in the answers given by a single participant? If not, maybe in the future, a statistical analysis can be conducted to ensure that carelessness or inattentiveness is not a variable that have skewed the results. This is essential as it increases both the the validity and reliability of the results.

sorry for the late reply, the type of validity is external, which reveal that the measure scale and the participants would cause the steady have low generalizabiliy.

study***