Help me essays
The most recent of which I am aware is Lombard et al.
In those that did, only four sentences, on average, were devoted to discussion and reporting of reliability. These results were broadly in line with earlier surveys.
The state of practice may have improved somewhat since Lombard et al.
But there is a bewildering array of flavors of validity: internal validity, external validity, construct validity, content validity, face validity, social validity, criterion validity, instrumental validity, sampling validity, semantic validity, structural validity, functional validity, correlative validity, concurrent validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, predictive validity, ecological validity. All of these, and others, have been described as relevant to content analysis. To evaluate the validity help me essays of our content analysis, it is necessary to untangle this knot help me essays of concepts and focus on the elements of validity most relevant to this research. Face validity is the extent to which an instrument appears on its face to measure what it purports to measure. Face validity thus appeals to a commonsensical evaluation of the plausibility of a study.
In the context of a content analysis such as this one, face validity may be assessed by considering whether the coding procedure appears to correspond with the concept being measured—the research questions. In addition, the coding guide appears in appendix B. By direct examination of the coding guide, it can be seen that the coding frame appears on its face to capture the concepts it sets out to capture. Face validity, however, is a low bar—the mere appearance of measuring the correct concept. In its original sense, the term refers to how well a social intervention is accepted by those who are meant to benefit from it.
This sense is relevant only to interventionist methodologies such as action research. In content analysis, social validity has a rather different meaning.
While social validity is a criterion that has seldom (if ever) been applied to software engineering research, the idea of ensuring that research is relevant to the real world is an important one.
Software architects today, I have argued, face substantial challenges in planning and executing major evolutions of software systems, and our work aims to help address a subset of these challenges. Our work thus has social validity to the extent it succeeds in having relevance to software practitioners. In general, empirical validity gets at how well the various inferences made within a essay introduction help research process are supported by available evidence and established theory, and how well the results can withstand challenges based on additional data or new observations.
Assessments of help me essays empirical validity are based on rational scientific considerations, as opposed to appearances (face validity) or social implications (social validity). Empirical validity is a broad concept with a number of distinct facets, which I will now proceed to examine. There are several conventionally recognized types of validity that fall under the heading of empirical validity: content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity. Content validity is the extent to which an instrument captures all the features of the concept it is intended to measure.
Data-driven (inductive) coding frames are instead concerned with face validity.
But when categories are derived from a theoretical concept, content validity is a concern, because it needs to be shown that the categories adequately cover the concepts they purport to cover. Here, the issue of content validity is a fairly straightforward one, because the categories for content analysis 2 were taken directly from the key concepts in our research—evolution operators, evolution constraints, and evolution path analyses (called dimensions of concern in the coding frame)—as well as traditional software architecture concepts such as components and connectors.
Descriptions of the categories capturing concepts from our approach (operators, constraints, analyses) were similarly based on our previous own descriptions of those concepts.
Thus, construct validity is of little relevance here. Like construct validity, criterion validity is of limited relevance here. There is one final type of validity that is highly relevant here: external validity, 10 or generalizability. Determining the appropriate scope of inference—the degree to which results can be generalized—is one of the most challenging and important aspects of the validation of a content analysis that seeks to have meaning beyond the immediate context of the data it is based on, or of a case study that aims to have implications beyond the case it examines. Since this work is both a content analysis and a case study (or more precisely a case study that incorporates a content analysis), the problem of generalizability is particularly acute. The question is not whether this case study is generalizable, but to what extent (in what respects, to which contexts) it is generalizable.
Second, a case study is not generalizable in the same sense that a study based on statistical sampling is generalizable. In a typical observational study or controlled experiment, generalization is straightforward. The study is conducted on a sample of some population, and the study is generalizable to the extent that the sample is representative of the population. Internal validity is the extent to which a study adequately demonstrates the causal relationships it purports to demonstrate.
Since we are not making any causal claims—this is a descriptive and evaluative case study, not an explanatory one—there is no issue of internal validity. There are two particularly significant such schools, which I will summarize in this footnote. The goal of a case study, these methodologists say, is not to discover some kind of law that is of general applicability to the world. Rather, it is to achieve a rich understanding of a single 110 5. Not only are there shades of gray in the generalizability of the case study as a whole, but also different results of a single case study may be generalizable in different ways. Some results may be highly specific to the help me essays context of the case study, while other may be readily transferable to other cases.
In evaluating analytic generalizability or transferability, we must consider what special characteristics of the case may have influenced the results.
At companies whose software systems have a similar history—companies with large, complex software systems that date back decades, built on mainframes using now-archaic technologies—this result would be transferable. And in fact, there are many companies with such a history. But at a company whose software systems have a very different history, the result would likely be quite different.
And of course, a new start-up would have no legacy challenges at all. On the contrary, the organization studied has taken significant measures in recent years to ameliorate communication, case through thick, naturalistic description, such that the results of the case study can be transferred on a case-by-case basis to other contexts where they may be applicable.