Every order is original, expert-done, and screened for AI — full report on request.See how it works

Assignment questions
NursingDiscussion postResearch instruments

DNP 830 Topic 3 DQ 2: instrument vs study validity

The word validity is doing two unrelated jobs in this prompt. One is a property of a measuring tool, the other a property of a study design — and the whole question is whether you can tell them apart.

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 15, 2026

01

Two different validities, and the prompt wants both told apart

The prompt sets a trap in plain sight. It asks about the validity and reliability of your instrument, and then asks how this is different from external and internal validity. Those are two different families of concept sharing one word. Instrument validity asks whether a tool measures the construct it claims to — content validity, construct validity, criterion validity — and reliability asks whether it measures consistently, reported as internal consistency or inter-rater agreement. Internal and external validity are properties of a study: whether its causal claim holds for its own participants, and whether the finding generalises. A perfectly valid instrument can sit inside a study with terrible internal validity, and that sentence is essentially the answer. The reverse also holds and is worth saying: a rigorous randomised design measuring the wrong construct produces an internally valid answer to a question nobody asked. Neither concept can cover for a failure in the other, which is why they are assessed separately.

Ground both halves in your actual instrument rather than in definitions. Give the reported reliability coefficient if there is one, and say what population it was established in, because a coefficient obtained in one population is not automatically inherited by another. An instrument validated on community-dwelling adults used with hospitalised older patients has a validity question attached to it that the original paper cannot answer for you, and naming that is exactly the kind of thing this discussion is designed to elicit. Then make the distinction concrete with one worked example: a reliable, valid instrument administered only to patients who volunteered gives you a study with a selection problem, and no psychometric property of the tool repairs it. That example does more than a paragraph of definitions, and it gives classmates something to reply to other than agreement. Pick one from your own setting if you can, since the borrowed textbook cases are already familiar to everyone reading.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

  • 01
    Distinguish psychometric properties of an instrument from design properties of a study.
  • 02
    Report reliability with the population it was established in.
  • 03
    Recognise that validation does not transfer automatically across populations.
  • 04
    Illustrate an abstract distinction with a concrete case.
Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Describe the validity and reliability of the instrument you chose in Topic 3 DQ 1. How is this different from external and internal validity?
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course! Name: Discussion Rubric DNP 830 Topic 3 DQ 2 Describe the validity and reliability of the instrument you chose in Topic 3 DQ 1 Grid View List View Excellent 90–100 Good 80–89 Fair 70–79 Poor 0–69 Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Posting: Timely and full participation 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. First Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. Total Points: 100 Name: Discussion Rubric

02

Turn the brief into deliverables

  1. 01
    Named validity types for your instrument, with evidence.
  2. 02
    A reliability estimate and the population it came from.
  3. 03
    A clear statement of what internal and external validity are properties of.
  4. 04
    A worked example separating the two families.
03

Instrument first, then study, then the distinction

01

Your instrument's validity evidence

Report the content, construct or criterion validity established for the tool.

02

Your instrument's reliability

Give the reliability estimate and the sample it was obtained in.

03

Internal and external validity

Define both as properties of a study rather than of a tool.

04

A case that separates them

Work an example where a good instrument sits in a weak design.

04

Where an instrument's psychometrics are reported

Recommended databases

  • CINAHL
  • PubMed Central
  • Health and Psychosocial Instruments
  • StatPearls research chapters

Search sequence

  1. 1.
    Retrieve your instrument's validation paper and note the validation population.
  2. 2.
    Record the reliability statistic reported and which kind it is.
  3. 3.
    Look up the standard threats to internal validity so the contrast is precise.
  4. 4.
    Find a study using your instrument in a population close to yours, if one exists.
05

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

  1. 01

    The validity and reliability of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for screening depression in primary health care

    BMC Psychiatry · 2020

    Reports validity and reliability for one instrument in a specific population, which is exactly the population-bound claim this post needs to make.

  2. 02

    Validation of the instrument “Complexity of Nursing Care”-A mixed-methods study

    Nursing Open · 2020

    Shows how an instrument's construct validity is established, so the validity types can be named rather than asserted.

  3. 03

    Study Bias

    StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023

    Sets out study-level biases, which is the other family of concept and the contrast the prompt is asking for.

  4. 04

    Human Subjects Research Design

    StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023

    Covers how design choices create internal validity threats independent of measurement quality.

06

Review before submission

Common mistakes

  • Treating instrument validity and internal validity as the same concept.
  • Quoting a reliability coefficient with no population attached.
  • Assuming validation in one population carries to yours.
  • Answering with definitions only and never mentioning your own instrument.

Submission checklist

  • Is it clear which concepts belong to the tool and which to the study?
  • Did you name the population your reliability estimate came from?
  • Does your example show a valid instrument inside a weak design?
  • Have you addressed both validity and reliability, not just one?

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order