For those who want an extra level of confirmation, a validation procedure is a good way to go. It’s not necessary, and in most cases it will merely confirm that your calibration and profile were probably made correctly. The validation procedure for any monitor profiling software would be better called a “measurement consistency” report. It throws up a sampling of colors on the screen to measure and compares the result with what it would expect to get through the profile it just made. In most cases, the deltaE difference between the two are very small with some of the larger differences happening in the darker colors (since those are harder to measure accurately). Depending on the measurement instrument and the display in use, you’d expect to get less than 1 dE for most colors (for a quality display).
It’s worthwhile to note that “validation” does not actually validate that your colors are accurate. Because you’re going through the same instrument that was used to make the profile measurements to begin with, the most you can hope for is a confirmation that your measurements are not changing. Still, a final result that shows low delta E’s will provide some assurance that you did not make a really bad profile.
So take it for what it is - and you can probably do fine with the default set of validation patches (ie: Basic RGB). Eizo also offers to validate the profile against a number of European standards. Unless you are working in a press room, you would not have any use for this.
Here’s a new thought. Some industry experts suggest that since modern displays are of such good quality, we don’t need to calibrate them nearly as often. So instead of calibrating them every 3 weeks or so - instead just check them using the validation routine. If they are far off then re-calibrate. But if they are holding true to the previous calibration, then you’re good to go for another few weeks.