validity

(redirected from methodological quality)
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia.

val·id

 (văl′ĭd)
adj.
1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic
a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
5. Archaic Of sound health; robust.

[French valide, from Old French, from Latin validus, strong, from valēre, to be strong; see wal- in Indo-European roots.]

va·lid′i·ty, val′id·ness n.
val′id·ly adv.
Synonyms: valid, sound2, cogent, convincing
These adjectives describe assertions, arguments, conclusions, reasons, or intellectual processes that are persuasive because they are well founded. What is valid is based on or borne out by truth or fact or has legal force: a valid excuse; a valid claim.
What is sound is free from logical flaws or is based on valid reasoning: a sound theory; sound principles.
Something cogent is both sound and compelling: cogent testimony; a cogent explanation.
Convincing implies the power to dispel doubt or overcome resistance or opposition: convincing proof.

va•lid•i•ty

(vəˈlɪd ɪ ti)

n.
1. the state or quality of being valid.
2. legal soundness or force.
[1540–50; < Late Latin]

Validity

 

hold water To be valid, sound, and defensible; to show no inconsistency or deficiency when put to the test. As early as the beginning of the 17th century, this expression was used figuratively of arguments, statements, etc., although both hold and water can be taken literally to describe a vessel or other receptacle’s soundness in retaining a liquid.

Let them produce a more rational account of any other opinion, that will hold water … better than this mine doth. (John French, The York-shire Spaw, 1652)

a leg to stand on Viable proof or justification; something on which to base one’s claims or attitudes. A leg pro vides support and helps to maintain balance. Figuratively this expression is most often heard in the negative not have a leg to stand on, referring to one who fails to support his attitudes or behavior. It is frequently used in legal contexts where an inability to provide proof or justification is pronounced. The still current expression dates from the 16th century.

She hasn’t a leg to stand on in the case. He’s divorcing her, she’s not divorcing him. (M. Spark, Bachelors, 1960)

ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.validity - the quality of being valid and rigorous
believability, credibility, credibleness - the quality of being believable or trustworthy
2.validity - the quality of having legal force or effectiveness
legality - lawfulness by virtue of conformity to a legal statute
effect, force - (of a law) having legal validity; "the law is still in effect"
3.validity - the property of being strong and healthy in constitution
strength - the property of being physically or mentally strong; "fatigue sapped his strength"

validity

noun
1. soundness, force, power, grounds, weight, strength, foundation, substance, point, cogency Some people deny the validity of this claim.
2. legality, authority, legitimacy, right, lawfulness They now want to challenge the validity of the vote.

validity

noun
The quality of being authentic:
Translations
Validität
kelpoisuusvaliditeetti
veljavnost

validity

[vəˈlɪdɪtɪ] N (all senses) → validez f

validity

[vəˈlɪdəti væˈlɪdəti] n
[contract, document] → validité f
[claim, results, method, argument] → validité f

validity

n
(Jur etc: of document) → (Rechts)gültigkeit f; (of ticket etc)Gültigkeit f; (of claim)Berechtigung f
(of argument)Stichhaltigkeit f; (of excuse etc)Triftigkeit f; the validity of your objectionIhr berechtigter or begründeter Einwand; we discussed the validity of merging these two cinematic styleswir diskutierten, ob es zulässig ist, diese beiden Filmstile zu mischen

validity

[vəˈlɪdɪtɪ] n (of document) → validità; (of argument) → fondatezza, validità

va·lid·i·ty

n. validez.

validity

n validez f
References in periodicals archive ?
Eligible studies were assessed for methodological quality using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist (Downs and Black 1998).
Methodological quality was assessed independently using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
The study was limited by the fact that most of the trials were of short duration (< 12 weeks) and considered to be of low quality as assessed by methodological quality score, and that substantial inter-study heterogeneity remained unexplained.
Unfortunately, these claims are based on research that has both conceptual and methodological limitations including, (a) the use of narrative, rather than systematic review procedures (Schoenfeld & Janney, 2008; Stallard, 2010), (b) the inclusion of FRIENDS evaluations that were not conducted in school settings (Schoenfeld & Janney, 2008; Stallard, 2010), (c) the failure to consider the importance of methodological quality of included studies (Stallard, 2010; WHO, 2004), and (d) the focus of reviews on the broader prevention literature related to anxiety rather than the FRIENDS program exclusively (Horowitz & Garber, 2006; Neil & Christensen, 2009).
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
Methodological quality of animal studies on neuroprotection in focal cerebral ischaemia.
The objective of this study was to conduct a structured review to assess the role of paternal influence on adolescent sexual behaviour and to assess the methodological quality of the paternal influence literature related to adolescent sexual behaviour.
The methodological quality graph presents, for each quality assessment item, the percentage of included studies in which the item was rated "yes," "no," and "unclear" in a stacked bar chart.
The methodological quality of four studies was rated as high; five were of medium quality; and three were of low quality.
The assessment of methodological quality of RCTs was based on the risk of bias from the Cochrane Handbook, and the main outcome data of trials were analyzed by using RevMan 5.