Package: contentvalidR 0.10.1

contentvalidR: Tools for Substantive and Content Validity Pretesting

Provides quantitative tools for substantive and content-oriented scale pretesting. Implements item-sort indices from Anderson and Gerbing (1991) <doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.732>, exact item-sort inference following Howard and Melloy (2016) <doi:10.1007/s10869-015-9404-y>, empirical interpretation benchmarks from Colquitt et al. (2019) <doi:10.1037/apl0000406>, and the construct-rating procedure of Hinkin and Tracey (1999) <doi:10.1177/109442819922004> with HTC/HTD indices and repeated-measures item screening. The expert-panel workflow combines Aiken's V with score confidence intervals, Lawshe content validity ratios with exact inference, content validity indices with modified kappa and score intervals, item-objective congruence, and panel-level agreement using Krippendorff's alpha as described by Hayes and Krippendorff (2007) <doi:10.1080/19312450709336664>. Also provides judge and rater heterogeneity analysis following the generalizability-theory treatment of content-validity ratings in Crocker, Llabre and Miller (1988) <doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1988.tb00309.x>, content-domain coverage and expert-perceived content structure following Sireci and Geisinger (1992) <doi:10.1177/014662169201600102>, consensus and stability across Delphi rounds with between-round weighted kappa following Holey et al. (2007) <doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-52>, comparison across successive pretest rounds, and exact expert-panel planning. Where published methods compete, users choose among them through arguments with evidence-based defaults. User-facing workflows emphasize interpretable summaries and transparent review recommendations rather than isolated coefficients.

Authors:Joshua Uhalt [aut, cre]

contentvalidR_0.10.1.tar.gz
contentvalidR_0.10.1.zip(r-4.7-any)contentvalidR_0.10.1.zip(r-4.6-any)contentvalidR_0.10.1.zip(r-4.5-any)
contentvalidR_0.10.1.tgz(r-4.6-any)contentvalidR_0.10.1.tgz(r-4.5-any)
contentvalidR_0.10.1.tar.gz(r-4.7-any)contentvalidR_0.10.1.tar.gz(r-4.6-any)
contentvalidR_0.10.1.tgz(r-4.6-emscripten)
manual.pdf |manual.html✨
DESCRIPTION |NEWS
card.svg |card.png
contentvalidR/json (API)

# Install 'contentvalidR' in R:
install.packages('contentvalidR', repos = c('https://juhalt.r-universe.dev', 'https://cloud.r-project.org'))

Bug tracker:https://github.com/juhalt/contentvalidr/issues

Pkgdown/docs site:https://juhalt.github.io

On CRAN:

Conda:

content-validitydelphiexpert-panelmeasurementpsychologypsychometricsresearch-methodsscale-developmentsubstantive-validity

4.40 score 35 exports 0 dependencies

Last updated from:4c13be087f (on v0.10.1). Checks:9 OK. Indexed: yes.

TargetResultTimeFilesSyslog
linux-develOK171
source / vignettesOK192
linux-releaseOK153
macos-releaseOK154
macos-oldrelOK103
windows-develOK141
windows-releaseOK116
windows-oldrelOK131
wasm-releaseOK97

Exports:agreement_summaryaikens_vanova_contentcolquitt_benchmarkscompare_roundscompute_csvcompute_psacontent_evidencecontent_handoffcontent_reportcontent_structurecontentvalid_glossarycsv_binom_testcvicvrdelphi_validitydomain_validityexpert_powerexpert_validitygtheory_contenthtchtdinterpret_colquittiocjudge_validitypanel_agreementqfactor_contentrating_validityreproducibility_phisignal_detectionsimilarity_from_sortsimulate_anova_powersimulate_csv_powersort_powersort_validity

Dependencies:

Expert-Panel Content Validation: Relevance, Essentiality, and Congruence
Why expert-panel methods need separate modes | Relevance: Aiken V, score intervals, and CVI | Panel-level agreement | Why alpha can be low when experts agree | Gwet's AC1 | The interval | Essentiality: Lawshe CVR with exact critical values | Lawshe's table and its recalculation, for comparison | Congruence: item-objective alignment | Missing ratings | Plotting expert evidence | Reporting | References

Last update: 2026-09-28
Started: 2026-09-01

Delphi Rounds: Consensus and Stability
Two questions, not one | Decide three things before the first round | The data | Fitting the workflow | Reading consensus | Reading stability | Seeing the trends | Why the default looks at individual experts | Relevance evidence round by round | Reporting | Carrying a Delphi forward | What this analysis does not establish | References

Last update: 2026-09-28
Started: 2026-09-19

From Content Validity to Empirical Validation
Where content validity stops | A worked panel | The handoff | What the object holds | How much evidence is behind each number | Constructs | Into an empirical workflow | What the handoff does not claim | Reporting the transition

Last update: 2026-09-28
Started: 2026-09-16

Manuscript-Ready Reporting Examples
Purpose | Item-sort study | Methods scaffold | Results scaffold | Construct-rating study | Expert-panel study | Relevance | Essentiality | Congruence | Figures across review stages | Minimum reproducibility statement | Language to avoid | References

Last update: 2026-09-28
Started: 2026-09-02

One Item Set, Both Stages
The claim this walkthrough is testing | The construct and the items | Stage one: the expert panel | The handoff | Stage two: what the responses say | Recode first, and see why it matters | Two factors | The item you should keep anyway | What a second stage adds beyond factors | The moral, stated plainly | Reproducing the data | References

Last update: 2026-09-28
Started: 2026-09-23

Design & Reporting Guide
Choosing a method | Sample-size planning | Recommended reporting sequence | Deterministic bundled examples | Table templates | Item sort | Construct rating | Expert relevance | Diagnostics and later validation | Planning how many judges to recruit | Good practices | References

Last update: 2026-09-27
Started: 2025-08-27

Construct-Rating Content Validation: Hinkin-Tracey to Colquitt
What the rating workflow asks | Example data | HTC: definitional correspondence | HTD: definitional distinctiveness | Repeated-measures item screening | Recommended workflow | Scale-level Colquitt norms | Naive versus expert judges | Missing ratings | Plotting | Reporting | References

Last update: 2026-09-27
Started: 2026-08-31

Item-Sort Content Validation: Anderson-Gerbing to Howard-Melloy to Colquitt
What this workflow answers | A reproducible example | Item-level inference: Howard-Melloy | Scale-level interpretation: Colquitt et al. (2019) | Correlation-conditional norms | Judge type matters | Planning judge sample size | Plotting item evidence | Earlier rules, for comparison only | Reporting | References

Last update: 2026-09-27
Started: 2026-08-31

Getting Started with contentvalidR
References

Last update: 2026-09-27
Started: 2025-08-27

How to Read contentvalidR Output
Who this is for | The shared vocabulary | Reading an item-sort result | The benchmark trap | Reading expert-panel evidence | Reading the intervals | Reading panel agreement | Reading judge heterogeneity | Reading domain coverage | Common misreadings | Writing it up | Turning off the inline key | References

Last update: 2026-09-27
Started: 2026-09-13

Readme and manuals

Help Manual

Help pageTopics
Agreement summary (deprecated)agreement_summary
Aiken's V for expert content-relevance ratingsaikens_v
Hinkin-Tracey ANOVA content testanova_content
Extract workflow results as a plain data frameas.data.frame.contentvalid_workflow
Colquitt et al. (2019) empirical content-validation benchmarkscolquitt_benchmarks
Compare content-validity evidence across pretest roundscompare_rounds
Substantive Validity Coefficient (Csv)compute_csv
Proportion of Substantive Agreement (Psa)compute_psa
Combine content evidence across review stagescontent_evidence
Carry content-validity decisions into empirical validationcontent_handoff
Build a manuscript-ready results tablecontent_report
Item-similarity structure of a content domaincontent_structure
Glossary of contentvalidR indices and status termscontentvalid_glossary
Exact item-sort significance testcsv_binom_test
Content Validity Index (CVI)cvi
Lawshe's Content Validity Ratio (CVR)cvr
Delphi consensus and stability across roundsdelphi_validity
Analyze content-domain coverage and structuredomain_validity
Plan an expert panel against an explicit decision criterionexpert_power
Analyze expert-panel content-validity evidenceexpert_validity
Generalizability analysis of content-validity ratingsgtheory_content
Hinkin-Tracey correspondence (HTC)htc
Hinkin-Tracey distinctiveness (HTD)htd
Interpret a statistic using Colquitt et al. (2019) normsinterpret_colquitt
Item-Objective Congruence (IOC)ioc
Analyze judge and rater heterogeneity in content-validity ratingsjudge_validity
Panel-level agreement among expert raterspanel_agreement
Plot a Delphi analysisplot.contentvalid_delphi
Plot content evidence across review stagesplot.contentvalid_evidence
Plot expert-panel content-validity resultsplot.contentvalid_expert
Plot an expert-panel planning curveplot.contentvalid_expert_power
Plot Hinkin-Tracey rating evidenceplot.contentvalid_rating
Plot item-sort evidenceplot.contentvalid_sort
Plot exact item-sort planning evidenceplot.contentvalid_sort_power
Plot an expert content mapplot.contentvalid_structure
Q-factor helper for content adequacy (comparator)qfactor_content
Analyze a Hinkin-Tracey construct-rating content-validity pretestrating_validity
Between-pretest reproducibility (phi) of binary decisionsreproducibility_phi
Signal-detection summary for binary retention decisionssignal_detection
Derive item similarities from an item-sort tasksimilarity_from_sort
Legacy independent-groups ANOVA power simulatorsimulate_anova_power
Legacy simulation of item-sort target-count powersimulate_csv_power
Exact power for the item-sort target-count rulesort_power
Analyze an item-sort content-validity pretestsort_validity