An Epistemological Model for a Data Analysis Process in Support of Verification and Validation

  • Alicia RuvinskyEmail author
  • LaKenya Walker
  • Warith Abdullah
  • Maria Seale
  • William G. Bond
  • Leslie Leonard
  • Janet Wedgwood
  • Michael Krein
  • Timothy Siedlecki
Part of the Information Fusion and Data Science book series (IFDS)


The verification and validation (V&V) of the data analysis process is critical for establishing the objective correctness of an analytic workflow. Yet, problems, mechanisms, and shortfalls for verifying and validating data analysis processes have not been investigated, understood, or well defined by the data analysis community. The processes of verification and validation evaluate the correctness of a logical mechanism, either computational or cognitive. Verification establishes whether the object of the evaluation performs as it was designed to perform. (“Does it do the thing right?”) Validation establishes whether the object of the evaluation performs accurately with respect to the real world. (“Does it do the right thing?”) Computational mechanisms producing numerical or statistical results are used by human analysts to gain an understanding about the real world from which the data came. The results of the computational mechanisms motivate cognitive associations that further drive the data analysis process. The combination of computational and cognitive analytical methods into a workflow defines the data analysis process. People do not typically consider the V&V of the data analysis process. The V&V of the cognitive assumptions, reasons, and/or mechanisms that connect analytical elements must also be considered and evaluated for correctness. Data Analysis Process Verification and Validation (DAP-V&V) defines a framework and processes that may be applied to identify, structure, and associate logical elements. DAP-V&V is a way of establishing correctness of individual steps along an analytical workflow and ensuring integrity of conceptual associations that are composed into an aggregate analysis.


Verification Validation Data analysis Data model Analysis model Epistemology 


  1. 1.
    W. Abdullah, R. Reddy, C. Butler, W. Walters, Utilizing Bayesian belief networks to model the ocean-atmosphere interface. J Miss Acad. Sci 63(1), 121–122 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Adcock, D. Collier, Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95(03), 529–546 (2001).
  3. 3.
    A. Bekker, 4 types of Data Analytics to Improve Decision-Making (Science Soft, 2017), [Online]. Available: Accessed 3 Dec 2018
  4. 4.
    F.C. Copleston, A History of Philosophy (Image Books, Garden City, 1964)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Cronbach, P. Meehl, Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52(4), 281–302 (1955)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.D. Fearon, D.D. Laitin, Ordinary Language and External Validity: Specifying Concepts in the Study of Ethnicity*. LiCEP Meetings (2000), Retrieved from
  7. 7.
    T. Harford, Big data: A big mistake? Significance 11(5), 14–19 (2014).
  8. 8.
    I. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, 1. paperback ed., 15. print (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge [u.a.], 2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry (Chandler, San Francisco, 1964)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    C. Kufs, The five pursuits you meet in statistics. (Stats With Cats Blog, 2010), Retrieved May 10, 2018, from
  12. 12.
    D. Lazer, R. Kennedy, What we can learn from the epic failure of google flu trends. (WIRED, 2015), Retrieved May 10, 2018, from
  13. 13.
    I.S. Lustick, M.R. Tubin, Verification as a form of validation: Deepening theory to broaden application of DOD protocols to the social sciences, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, (San Francisco, 2012). Retrieved from as a Form of Validation - Lustick, Tubin.pdf
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    J.A. Paulos, Metric Mania (The New York Times, 2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Ruvinsky, J. Wedgwood, J. Welsh, Establishing bounds of responsible operational use of social science models via innovations in verification and validation, in 2nd International Conference on Cross-Cultural Decision Making, 2012Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Sailer, Google Flu Trends is dead – long live Google Trends? (UCL Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health Blog, 2018), Retrieved August 23, 2018, from
  18. 18.
    J.D. Stemwedel, Basic concepts: Falsifiable claims. – Adventures in ethics and science. Retrieved August 24, 2018, from
  19. 19.
    A.G. Stephenson, D.R. Mulville, F.H. Bauer, G.A. Dukeman, P. Norvig, L.S. LaPiana, R. Sackheim, Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board Phase I Report (1999), Retrieved from
  20. 20.
    K. Vasileva, Common mistakes in data analysis – The Data Nudge – Medium. (2017), Retrieved May 10, 2018, from
  21. 21.
    VV&A Recommended Practices Guide, (2011).
  22. 22.
    Wikipedia_contributors, Data analysis. (2018), Retrieved October 5, 2018, from
  23. 23.
    N. Yau, Why Context is as Important as the Data Itself (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia Ruvinsky
    • 1
    Email author
  • LaKenya Walker
    • 1
  • Warith Abdullah
    • 1
  • Maria Seale
    • 1
  • William G. Bond
    • 1
  • Leslie Leonard
    • 1
  • Janet Wedgwood
    • 2
  • Michael Krein
    • 2
  • Timothy Siedlecki
    • 2
  1. 1.US Army Engineer Research and Development Center – Information Technology LaboratoryVicksburgUSA
  2. 2.Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology LaboratoryCherry HillUSA

Personalised recommendations