A high correlation between a self-report depression inventory and a therapist-completed depression measure illustrates:

The correlation between a self-report depression inventory and a therapist-completed depression measure exemplifies convergent evidence. Convergent evidence refers to the degree to which different measures of the same construct yield similar results. In this case, both the self-report inventory and the therapist's assessment are intended to measure the same underlying construct of depression.

When two different assessment instruments show a high degree of correlation, it supports the validity of both measures, as it indicates that they are indeed measuring the same concept, which is critical for ensuring that assessments accurately reflect the phenomenon being studied. This high correlation enhances the credibility of the assessments and suggests that individuals' self-reported experiences are in alignment with professional evaluations, thereby reinforcing the reliability and validity of the tools used in diagnosing or understanding depression.

Other options, such as discriminant evidence, predictive validity, and face validity, represent different types of validity assessments. Discriminant evidence pertains to how well a measure distinguishes between different constructs; predictive validity concerns how well a measure can forecast future outcomes; and face validity relates to whether a measure appears to assess what it claims, at face value. However, they do not apply here as directly as convergent evidence does in the context of the described correlation.