Which type of validity is being evaluated when comparing results from the coin-rotation task with other tests of motor dexterity?

The evaluation in this scenario pertains to convergent validity. Convergent validity is the extent to which two measures that theoretically should be related are, in fact, related. In this case, by comparing the results from the coin-rotation task—an assessment intended to measure motor dexterity—with other tests designed to measure the same construct (motor dexterity), researchers can assess whether different methods of measurement yield similar outcomes. A positive correlation between the coin-rotation task and other dexterity assessments would support the convergent validity of the coin-rotation task, suggesting that it effectively measures motor dexterity as intended.

Other forms of validity such as discriminant validity relate to ensuring that measures that should not be related are indeed unrelated, while face validity involves subjective judgment about whether a test appears to measure what it is supposed to measure. Content validity refers to the extent to which a measurement reflects the intended domain of content, which is not the focus here since the question specifically involves relating outcomes of different measures. Thus, the context of comparing outcomes from different tests solidifies convergent validity as the appropriate type being evaluated.