Log in or create a free Rosenverse account to watch this video.
Log in Create free account100s of community videos are available to free members. Conference talks are generally available to Gold members.
A Mixed Method Approach to Validity to Help Build Trust
Summary
Quantitative instruments are frequently sought because 1) they can be quickly fielded to lots and lots of people, and 2) when carefully sampled, they can be generalizable to the population of users/customers. However, because many times the focus is on speed to launch because decision-makers need results quickly, there is not much depth given to their development, nor an investigation of the validity evidence. In the session, I will share a framework that centers validity and is necessarily a mixed methods approach to research. I will also share ideas on how to scale the research over time so that findings and insights are able to be iteratively delivered to stakeholders, while also iteratively informing one another in a qual-quant research dance that brings more trustworthy, user-centered evidence to decision-makers. Finally, I will share ideas for a course I am developing for supporting qualitative researchers to become more mixed in their approach.
Key Insights
-
•
Validity involves five evidence sources: content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences of testing.
-
•
Qualitative methods, especially cognitive interviews, are crucial for understanding how respondents interpret survey items, supporting validity.
-
•
Surveys should be treated as products that need ongoing iteration and testing, not one-off tools.
-
•
Ethical considerations extend beyond data privacy to how survey results affect user experience and product decisions.
-
•
Mixed methods approaches leverage both qualitative insights and quantitative analyses to build a stronger validity argument.
-
•
Breaking down survey validation work across multiple teams and 'bite-sized' efforts makes the process manageable.
-
•
Revising surveys over time to improve validity complicates measuring change longitudinally but increases trustworthiness.
-
•
Stakeholder buy-in improves when validity processes are communicated as phased insights offering tangible results quickly.
-
•
Analyses such as factor analysis and Rasch modeling reveal survey internal structure and help identify item bias across subpopulations.
-
•
It is important to revisit validity considerations continuously, especially after product or user base changes.
Notable Quotes
"Validity is the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses."
"Qualitative research in a mixed methods setting needs to think about validity to support the bigger validity argument."
"What would happen if you do think about validity? Would it change your process or research plans?"
"Surveys are products too, so they need to be iteratively tested."
"You don’t know what you don’t know. Let’s write surveys that cover those blind spots."
"If the survey wording changes, measuring change over time becomes difficult, but improving the survey builds trust."
"Ethical considerations should go beyond typical privacy reviews and think deeply about user impact throughout the process."
"It is better to partner with someone who has quantitative expertise to interpret internal structure analyses."
"Management and stakeholders often care more about getting usable information quickly than understanding the full validity process."
"We can get quick insights in phases to keep teams engaged and slowly build a complete validity argument."
Or choose a question:
More Videos
"Users creatively circumvent broken enterprise systems, which traditional metrics often miss."
Alexandra SchmidtEnterprise UX Playbook
December 1, 2022
"If you want to have tattoos, you can have tattoos and show them."
Jen Crim Jess Quittner Saritha Kattekola Alex Karr Gurbani PahwaCulture, DIBS & Recruiting
June 11, 2021
"If you’re a product manager, you don’t do very much design work anymore; you care about it but step away from the Figma."
Christian CrumlishAMA with Christian Crumlish, author of Product Management for UX People
March 24, 2022
"This candidate experience was terrible for everybody but especially disadvantaging folks who started with lower confidence."
Libby MaurerTreating Diversity & Inclusion in Hiring as a Design Problem
December 5, 2019
"Technology is a tool, not a solution in itself; it needs human input."
Ali Jeffery Sheri ChudowHow DesignOps Helped Enable Wall Street to Work Remotely
October 22, 2020
"We all say empathy is foundational for good design, yet contemporary research often remains oddly distant from real human experience."
Daniel GloydDesigning From the Inside Out: How Method Acting Can Inspire Design Research
February 12, 2026
"Teachers need actionable insights, not just raw data."
Kristin SkinnerFive Years of DesignOps
September 29, 2021
"The most significant source of confusion is the difference between research questions and interview questions - Erica Hall."
Johanna KollmannInsights-Driven Product Strategy: Get your Research to Count
December 6, 2022
"When you observe a quantum particle, its possible states collapse to one—just like user intent collapses to action."
David SternbergUncovering the hidden forces shaping user behavior
July 17, 2025
