000			01576naa a2200193uu 4500
001			7278
003			OSt
005			20220419175049.0
008			020926s2005 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aADCOCK, Robert _990
245	1	0	_aMeasurement validity : _ba shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research
260			_c2001
520	3		_aScholars routinely make claims that presuppose the validity of the observations and measurements that operationalize their concepts. Yet, despit 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 seed 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
700	1		_916762 _aCollier, David
773	0	8	_tAmerican Political Science Review _g95, 3, p. 529-546 _d, 2001 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20020926 _bCassio _cCassio
998			_a20060515 _b1034^b _cQuiteria
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c7431 _d7431
041			_aeng