Strict Model: Only value 1 is considered "relevant". Values 2 and 3 are evaluated as "not relevant".
Item Experts CVR I-CVI
# Value Value
CVI (Content Validity Index): -
S-CVI/Ave (Scale-level CVI/Average): -
S-CVI/UA (Scale-level CVI/Universal Agreement): -

Calculation Explanations

CVR (Content Validity Ratio)

CVR = (ne - N/2) / (N/2)

ne: Number of experts rating the item as "relevant"

N: Total number of experts

Lawshe's Minimum CVR Values:
Number of Experts Minimum CVR
50.99
60.99
70.99
80.75
90.78
100.62
110.59
120.56
130.54
140.51
150.49
200.42
250.37
300.33
350.31
400.29
Source: Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.

I-CVI (Item-level Content Validity Index)

I-CVI = Number of experts rating item as relevant / Total number of experts
Evaluation Criteria:
  • 1-2 Experts: I-CVI must be 1.0 (green)
  • 3+ Experts:
    • I-CVI ≥ 0.78: Valid (green)
    • I-CVI 0.70-0.78: Needs revision (orange)
    • I-CVI < 0.70: Should be eliminated (red)

Note: Values can range from 0 to 1. The calculated I-CVI of 0.79 or more indicates the items are relevant, and 0.70 to 0.79 indicates the item needs revisions. In contrast, less than 0.70 suggests that items need to be eliminated. With more than five experts, the acceptable value for I-CVI is 0.78.

Sources:
Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35(6):382–5. doi: 10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017.
Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.

CVI (Content Validity Index)

CVI = Average of all CVR values
Acceptable CVI Values:
Number of Experts Acceptable CVI Values Source of Recommendation
2At least 0.8Davis (1992)
3-5Should be 1Polit & Beck (2006), Polit et al. (2007)
At least 6At least 0.83Polit & Beck (2006), Polit et al. (2007)
6-8At least 0.83Lynn (1986)
At least 9At least 0.78Lynn (1986)
Sources:
Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197.
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-385.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-497.
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467.

S-CVI/Ave (Scale-level CVI/Average)

S-CVI/Ave = Average of all I-CVI values
Validity Criteria:
  • Excellent Content Validity: S-CVI/Ave ≥ 0.90
  • Invalid: S-CVI/Ave < 0.90

Note: To determine the validity of S-CVI, researchers still use the CVI value ≥ 0.8. So, If S-CVI ≥ 0.8, the category is Valid and if S-CVI < 0.78, the category is Invalid.

Sources:
Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (2005). Measurement in nursing and health research. Springer Publishing Company.
Shi, J., Mo, X., & Sun, Z. (2012). Content validity index in scale development. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 37(2), 152-155.

S-CVI/UA (Scale-level CVI/Universal Agreement)

S-CVI/UA = Items with Universal Agreement / Total Items
Validity Criteria:
  • Excellent Content Validity: S-CVI/UA ≥ 0.80
  • Invalid: S-CVI/UA < 0.80

Note: S-CVI/UA and S-CVI/Ave are both scale level CVI with different formulas. Researchers recommend that a scale with excellent content validity should be composed of I-CVIs of 0.78 or higher and S-CVI/UA and S-CVI/Ave of 0.8 and 0.9 or higher, respectively.

Sources:
Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197.
Shi, J., Mo, X., & Sun, Z. (2012). Content validity index in scale development. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 37(2), 152-155.