Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research

TLDR

Scholars often assume measurement validity, yet political science has paid surprisingly little attention to this issue. The study aims to fill this gap by outlining four key themes for improving measurement validity. The authors propose a shared framework, distinguish measurement from conceptual disputes, examine context‑specific strategies, and categorize the three principal validation approaches relevant to political science.

Abstract

Scholars routinely make claims that presuppose the validity of the observations and measurements that operationalize their concepts. Yet, despite recent advances in political science methods, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to measurement validity. We address this gap by exploring four themes. First, we seek to establish a shared framework that allows quantitative and qualitative scholars to assess more effectively, and communicate about, issues of valid measurement. Second, we underscore the need to draw a clear distinction between measurement issues and disputes about concepts. Third, we discuss the contextual specificity of measurement claims, exploring a variety of measurement strategies that seek to combine generality and validity by devoting greater attention to context. Fourth, we address the proliferation of terms for alternative measurement validation procedures and offer an account of the three main types of validation most relevant to political scientists.