Talk:Validation

This is not a disambiguation page.

This is not a disambiguation page. Or the notice at the bottom is incomplete and therefore misleading. It is certainly false that "This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title."

The page is certainly useful. And it certainly does disambiguate the word. I wonder if the boilerplate for disambiguation pages should be rethought.

Nor does the page conform to the guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages.

a. The page has content; it's not a "non-article page containing no content, that only refer users to other Wikipedia pages."

b. The page title does not conform. Perhaps it should be moved to Validation (disambiguation).

The style guide for disambiguation pages is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages).

Some editors may wish to add pages such as:

Validation (psychology)

Validation (computer security)

Validation (logic)

Validation (drug manufacture)

Validation (generally)

and move the mini-articles to there.

Or a link to Wiktionary instead of Validation (generally).

Or keep the links that are here, but reduce the discussion. Maybe some links can be replaced with links to particular sections of the linked pages.

Or we can leave this useful page just as it is. I'm not a hard liner.

--Joaquin

At the very least, someone might want to fix the opening sentence, which states that validation "has several related meanings that have no meanings". Huh?

Sculliam 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Validation as a psychological term

Validation is a process which is used to acknowledge, to grant official or public recognition, to make meaningful, to make relevant, to make well grounded or justifiable, and to instill acceptance. Validation can be a process, verbal techniques or therapeutic tools. Validation is often a vital element used in psychological treatment. -- 205.180.71.120 17:34, 2004 Apr 29

Verification vs validation

I don't think the distinction is currently terribly clear (especially as verification redirects to formal verification).

I've seen the following proposed as a distinction (due to William Marsh):

verification captures the notion of correct against the specified behaviour, whereas
validation ensures correctness against the behaviour actually needed

What do people think?

-- JTN 20:33, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

In the context of software for medical devices, the FDA provides this clarification in their Glossary of Computerized System and Software Development Terminology:

verification, software. (NBS) In general the demonstration of consistency, completeness, and correctness of the software at each stage and between each stage of the development life cycle.
validation, software. (NBS) Determination of the correctness of the final program or software produced from a development project with respect to the user needs and requirements. Validation is usually accomplished by verifying each stage of the software development life cycle.

So verification is a process needed to finish each stage of SW development, a validated state is achieved when all stages have been completed with a satisfactory result. So much for medical devices, but is this sort of description useful for a general description of these terms?

--Caped 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Verification vs validation

Definitely not clear (the distinction)! Unfortunately, though, this is a very general problem, in the whole software industry. (I can only talk for software, working as a quality/process engineer.)

A common distinction (endorsed e.g. by SEI CMMI) that verification proves that the way "how" we implemented something is correct (i.e. matches the requirements). OTOH, validation proves that "what" was implemented is correct (i.e. the requirements themselves match the real needs/use). (Thus, in a sense, one can say that validation is the verification of the requirements.)

Luna Kid (2006 Jan 12)

Ok,this is still confusing. Normally wikipedia is useful, but this confuses me. In the ICT Exams I'm practicing on, Verification and Validation come up a lot. I'm not sure if this is right, but this is what io thought i knew: Validation- Checking it is the correct type of data,eg a number instead of text. Verificatiion-Checking if it maches the correct data, eg a password check. can someone help? -Grim- 08:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples of Validation vs. Verification?

'Built the right product' - Validation
Example:
A customer has certain needs, from which requirements are derived. The customer needs to move something from point A to point B, given this much time, etc. The derived requirements are:
a) build a transport vehicle
b) having range: ## miles
c) at an average speed of: ## mph, maximum speed: ## mph
d) carrying capacity: ## tons

Validation: do these requirements accomplish the customer's goal? Is this what the customer wants?

'Built the product right' - Verification
a) are the requirements met by the design?
b) analysis performed to demonstrate that (a) can be achieved
c) measurements performed when possible to prove that requirements are being met
Example:
- prototype is built to test range of design against customer requirements
- simulation is performed to show that in anticipated environment the design will still meet stated requirements

We still need an article on emotional validation

As has been pointed out above (twice), we're still missing an article on emotional validation a.k.a. psychological validation a.k.a. self-validation. This is distinction from sociological group validation, which we do have an article on (they're almost exact opposites - that one is about fitting in, this one is about standing out). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]