% Generated by roxygen2: do not edit by hand
% Please edit documentation in R/scvi_ave.R
\name{scvi_ave}
\alias{scvi_ave}
\title{Scale-level Content Validity Index, Average method (S-CVI/Ave)}
\usage{
scvi_ave(ratings, relevant_threshold = 3, na.rm = FALSE)
}
\arguments{
\item{ratings}{A numeric matrix or data frame of expert ratings (rows =
experts, columns = items) on a relevance scale.}

\item{relevant_threshold}{Integer. Minimum rating considered "relevant".
Defaults to 3.}

\item{na.rm}{Logical. Passed through to \code{\link[=icvi]{icvi()}}. Defaults to \code{FALSE}.}
}
\value{
A single numeric value: the average I-CVI across items.
}
\description{
Computes the Scale-level Content Validity Index using the averaging method,
defined as the mean of the Item-level Content Validity Indices (I-CVI)
across all items in the instrument.
}
\details{
S-CVI/Ave >= 0.90 is generally considered excellent content validity at the
scale level (Polit & Beck, 2006). Note that S-CVI is undefined for a single
item; supply a matrix or data frame with two or more item columns.
}
\examples{
ratings <- matrix(
  c(4, 4, 3, 4, 4,
    3, 4, 4, 4, 3,
    2, 3, 3, 4, 3,
    1, 2, 3, 2, 3),
  nrow = 5
)
scvi_ave(ratings)

}
\references{
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you
sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations.
\emph{Research in Nursing & Health}, 29(5), 489-497.
\doi{10.1002/nur.20147}
}
\seealso{
\code{\link[=icvi]{icvi()}}
}
