Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Validity According to Flin (2002), validity rests upon two pillars: face validity and construct validity. Face validity refers to how well the participants feel the constructs (ie: learned skills, goal achievement, etc) are being measured (F, 277). From a gestalt perspective, I believe both trainings have a high face value since they have a logical structure that’s been pre-established by many scholars of the emergency training intervention field. Nevertheless, participants in the risk management training may feel that the course did not properly assess certain aspects of risk management. For example, someone’s individual performance may have improved, but their reasoning was ‘a gut feeling’ rather than implementing the education. Nevertheless, these thoughts would likely come to light through the feedback survey. As for stress management, it can be argued that the training was counterproductive because it exposed them to too many stressful stimuli, and therefore discouraged them from learning the stress management skills (H&S, 278). However, in efforts to prevent this from happening, I started the education with all the theoretical information, then practical learning stress-reducing techniques, into graded exposure to the stress stimuli. Construct validity asks if the chosen measurement tools accurately measure the theoretical concept. For risk management, one could ask if measuring the speed and accuracy of their risk identification is an accurate way of measuring risk detection; perhaps stress from the trials affected their performance and therefore didn’t get to express their knowledge. This is why it is also paired with a paper test (and, of course, a stress management course). For stress management, one can ask if reports of reduced stress across trials actually represents the acquisition of the skills. One could argue no, saying that the participants had been desensitized to the scenarios because of the high exposure to them alongside the constant confirmation that they weren’t real (R, 259). Unfortunately I don’t think a conclusion about this would be able to be made until the participants encounter a future practice-trail or real-life event.