Which type of validity is concerned with measuring abstract concepts like anxiety?

The correct choice is construct validity, which is essential when assessing abstract concepts such as anxiety. Construct validity refers to how well a test or tool measures the theoretical construct it is intended to measure. In the case of anxiety, it involves ensuring that the methods used to assess it accurately reflect the underlying psychological concept of anxiety, rather than measuring something else entirely.

For example, when researchers develop a questionnaire to measure anxiety levels, they must ensure that the items included truly relate to the construct of anxiety and not other constructs like depression or stress. This validity is crucial for establishing the effectiveness of interventions and therapies aimed at reducing anxiety, as it ensures that the outcomes being measured are relevant.

In contrast, face validity pertains to whether a test appears to measure what it claims at first glance, which is superficial and does not ensure that the measurement aligns with the theoretical construct. Similarly, content validity evaluates whether the test covers the entire range of the concept it intends to measure but does not directly assess the association with the abstract nature of constructs. Lastly, predictive validity looks at how well a test predicts outcomes in the future, which may not necessarily apply to constructs that are not easily quantifiable. Therefore, construct validity is the most appropriate answer for measuring abstract concepts like anxiety.