Is social validity what we are interested in? Argument for a functional approach

Area of Science:

• Rehabilitation science
• Program evaluation
• Consumer psychology

Background:

• Current terminology for evaluating habilitative programming is inadequate.
• Existing methods often conflate consumer opinions with objective program validity.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose improved terminology for assessing habilitative programming.
• To differentiate between consumer satisfaction and habilitative validation.
• To advocate for more objective assessment methods.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis of terminology in habilitative programming evaluation.
• Discussion of the limitations of consumer satisfaction measures.
• Argument for the adoption of 'habilitative validation'.

Main Results:

• The terms 'social' and 'validity' are insufficient for describing habilitative programming assessment.
• 'Consumer satisfaction' primarily reflects opinions, not program efficacy.
• 'Habilitative validation' better reflects the intent and rigor of program assessment.

Conclusions:

• Consumer satisfaction should not be mistaken for evidence of habilitative validity.
• Objective methods are needed to validate habilitative programs.
• Habilitative validation provides a more robust framework for program assessment.