Validity tests are meant to increase the credibility of psychometrics. They confirm the instruments of measurement are testing what they claim to. These tests measure the quality of information or evidence collected in research (Knekta et al., 2019). There are three main types of validity tests based on what and how they assess the quality of evidence. Construct validity uses an idea or concept to measure the validity of the test. This type of validity confirms the test is testing for a particular concept associated with the condition in question. Close in nature is content validity which confirms a test is measuring all concepts associated with a condition. The third is criterion validity which evaluates how well a test can measure the outcomes of a condition (Almanasreh, 2019). In this validity, the results are compared to accepted preexisting evidence. If they match, the test is valid. If they do not, the validity of the test is in question. The validity scale, on the other hand, measures the reliability of responses in a psychological test. Reliability in testing is the consistency in results when the test is administered. Tests retest is a measure of reliability. The idea is to confirm the test can produce consistent responses when administered at different times.
Based on their definitions, validity in psychometrics differs from the validity scale in a psychological test. Validity in psychometrics confirms the test is measuring what it is said to test, as discussed above. Validity scales in psychological tests measure the reliability of responseS in research. Research requires valid information to be credible. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) are two examples of validity scales. The MMPI-2 tests validity by detecting underrated responses; individuals downplay their conditions, over-exaggeration, and unresponsiveness to a test or irregular responses (Brown & Sellbom, 2019). The PAI measures validity by identifying inconsistent and infrequent responses.
Validity scales are essential in personal assessment because they provide the professional with information about the patient. The tests do not necessarily accept what the patient says but what the patient would. The most significant setback in using validity scales in personality assessment is the vast number of unreliable tests available in the market. The presence of so many commercially unreliable tests puts me at crossroads with personality tests in personality assessment. They are essential because they provide the necessary information, but unfortunately, they may be wrong or invalid. Despite these reservations, I believe validity scales should be used in personality assessment. Professionals analyzing behavior should find tests that are professionally accepted with less bias.