Top Banner
Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Chapter 14 Measurement and Data Quality
26
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Chapter 14

Measurement and Data Quality

Page 2: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Measurement

• The assignment of numbers to represent the amount of an attribute present in an object or person, using specific rules

• Advantages:

– Removes guesswork

– Provides precise information

– Less vague than words

Page 3: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Levels of Measurement• There are four levels (classes) of measurement:

– Nominal (assigning numbers to classify characteristics into categories)

– Ordinal (ranking objects based on their relative standing on an attribute)

– Interval (objects ordered on a scale that has equal distances between points on the scale)

– Ratio (equal distances between score units; there is a rational, meaningful zero)

• A variable’s level of measurement determines what mathematic operations can be performed in a statistical analysis.

Page 4: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Errors of Measurement

• Obtained Score = True score ± Error

– Obtained score: An actual data value for a participant (e.g., anxiety scale score)

– True score: The score that would be obtained with an infallible measure

– Error: The error of measurement, caused by factors that distort measurement

Page 5: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Factors That Contribute to Errors of Measurement

• Situational contaminants

• Transitory personal factors (e.g., fatigue)

• Response-set biases

• Administration variations

• Item sampling

Page 6: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Question

Is the following statement True or False?

• The true score is data obtained from the actual research study.

Page 7: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Answer

• False

– The true score is the score that would be obtained with an infallible measure. The obtained score is an actual value (datum) for a participant.

Page 8: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Psychometric Assessments

• A psychometric assessment is an evaluation of the quality of a measuring instrument.

• Key criteria in a psychometric assessment:

– Reliability

– Validity

Page 9: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Reliability

• The consistency and accuracy with which an instrument measures the target attribute

• Reliability assessments involve computing a reliability coefficient.

– Reliability coefficients can range from .00 to 1.00.

– Coefficients below .70 are considered unsatisfactory.

– Coefficients of .80 or higher are desirable.

Page 10: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Three Aspects of Reliability Can Be Evaluated

•Stability

• Internal consistency

•Equivalence

Page 11: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Stability

• The extent to which scores are similar on two separate administrations of an instrument

• Evaluated by test–retest reliability

– Requires participants to complete the same instrument on two occasions

– Appropriate for relatively enduring attributes (e.g., creativity)

Page 12: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Internal Consistency• The extent to which all the items on an instrument

are measuring the same unitary attribute

• Evaluated by administering instrument on one occasion

• Appropriate for most multi-item instruments

• The most widely used approach to assessing reliability

• Assessed by computing coefficient alpha (Cronbach’s alpha)

• Alphas ≥.80 are highly desirable.

Page 13: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Question

When determining the reliability of a measurement tool, which value would indicate that the tool is most reliable?

a. 0.50

b. 0.70

c. 0.90

d. 1.10

Page 14: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Answer

c. 0.90

• Reliability coefficients can range from 0.0 to 1.00. Coefficients of 0.80 or higher are desirable. Thus, a coefficient of 0.90 would indicate that the tool is very reliable. A value greater than 1.00 for a coefficient would be an error.

Page 15: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Equivalence

• The degree of similarity between alternative forms of an instrument or between multiple raters/observers using an instrument

• Most relevant for structured observations

• Assessed by comparing agreement between observations or ratings of two or more observers (interobserver/interrater reliability)

Page 16: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Reliability Principles

• Low reliability can undermine adequate testing of hypotheses.

• Reliability estimates vary depending on procedure used to obtain them.

• Reliability is lower in homogeneous than heterogeneous samples.

• Reliability is lower in shorter than longer multi-item scales.

Page 17: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Validity

• The degree to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure

• Four aspects of validity:

– Face validity

– Content validity

– Criterion-related validity

– Construct validity

Page 18: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Face Validity

• Refers to whether the instrument looks as though it is an appropriate measure of the construct

• Based on judgment; no objective criteria for assessment

Page 19: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Content Validity

• The degree to which an instrument has an adequate sample of items for the construct being measured

• Evaluated by expert evaluation, often via a quantitative measure—the content validity index (CVI)

Page 20: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Question

Is the following statement True or False?

• Face validity of an instrument is based on judgment.

Page 21: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Answer

• True

– Face validity refers to whether the instrument looks like it is an appropriate measure of the construct. There are no objective criteria for assessment; it is based on judgment.

Page 22: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Criterion-Related Validity• The degree to which the instrument is related

to an external criterion

• Validity coefficient is calculated by analyzing the relationship between scores on the instrument and the criterion.

• Two types:

• Predictive validity: the instrument’s ability to distinguish people whose performance differs on a future criterion

• Concurrent validity: the instrument’s ability to distinguish individuals who differ on a present criterion

Page 23: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Construct Validity

• Concerned with these questions:

– What is this instrument really measuring?

– Does it adequately measure the construct of interest?

Page 24: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Some Methods of Assessing Construct Validity

• Known-groups technique

• Testing relationships based on theoretical predictions

• Factor analysis

Page 25: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Criteria for Assessing Screening/Diagnostic Instruments

• Sensitivity: the instruments’ ability to correctly identify a “case”—i.e., to diagnose a condition

• Specificity: the instrument’s ability to correctly identify noncases, that is, to screen out those without the condition

• Likelihood ratio: Summarizes the relationship between sensitivity and specificity in a single number

– LR+: the ratio of true positives to false positives

– LR-: the ratio of false negatives to true negatives

Page 26: Chapter014

Copyright © 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

End of Presentation