A subset of 3 Predictive validity—means that the instrument content validity is face validity, where experts are asked should have high correlations with future criterions. For example, if a person has a high score on a Reliability survey that measures anxiety, does this person truly Reliability relates to the consistency of a measure.
A par- ticipant completing an instrument meant to measure Table 1 Types of validity motivation should have approximately the same Type of responses each time the test is completed. The three attributes of reliability are out- free content construct lined in table 2. How each attribute is tested for is Construct The extent to which a research instrument described below.
Stability The consistency of results using This test includes a process for qualitatively determining an instrument with repeated the level of agreement between two or more observers. The level of consistency across all judges in the instrument scores given to skating participants is the measure of inter-rater reliability. An example in research is when researchers are asked to give a score for the relevancy of divided in half.
Correlations are calculated comparing each item on an instrument. Consistency in their scores both halves. Strong correlations indicate high reliability, relates to the level of inter-rater reliability of the while weak correlations indicate the instrument may not instrument.
The Kuder-Richardson test is a more compli- Determining how rigorously the issues of reliability cated version of the split-half test.
In this process the and validity have been addressed in a study is an essen- average of all possible split half combinations is deter- tial component in the critique of research as well as mined and a correlation between 0—1 is generated. In quantitative only be completed on questions with two answers eg, studies, rigour is determined through an evaluation of yes or no, 0 or 1. A good quality research study will determine the internal consistency of an instrument.
In provide evidence of how all these factors have been this test, the average of all correlations in every combin- addressed. This will help you to assess the validity and ation of split-halves is determined. An acceptable reliability score is one that is 0. Test—retest reliability is assessed when an instrument is given to the same Competing interests None declared.
Lobiondo-Wood G, Haber J. Nursing research in Canada. This provides an indication of the reliability of the instru- Methods, critical appraisal, and utilization. For data extraction and analysis, several methods were adopted to enhance validity, including 1 st tier triangulation of researchers and 2 nd tier triangulation of resources and theories ,[ 17 , 21 ] well-documented audit trail of materials and processes,[ 22 , 23 , 24 ] multidimensional analysis as concept- or case-orientated[ 25 , 26 ] and respondent verification.
In quantitative research, reliability refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results. In qualitative research with diverse paradigms, such definition of reliability is challenging and epistemologically counter-intuitive.
Hence, the essence of reliability for qualitative research lies with consistency. Silverman[ 29 ] proposed five approaches in enhancing the reliability of process and results: Refutational analysis, constant data comparison, comprehensive data use, inclusive of the deviant case and use of tables.
As data were extracted from the original sources, researchers must verify their accuracy in terms of form and context with constant comparison,[ 27 ] either alone or with peers a form of triangulation. Most qualitative research studies, if not all, are meant to study a specific issue or phenomenon in a certain population or ethnic group, of a focused locality in a particular context, hence generalizability of qualitative research findings is usually not an expected attribute.
However, with rising trend of knowledge synthesis from qualitative research via meta-synthesis, meta-narrative or meta-ethnography, evaluation of generalizability becomes pertinent. A pragmatic approach to assessing generalizability for qualitative studies is to adopt same criteria for validity: That is, use of systematic sampling, triangulation and constant comparison, proper audit and documentation, and multi-dimensional theory. Despite various measures to enhance or ensure quality of qualitative studies, some researchers opined from a purist ontological and epistemological angle that qualitative research is not a unified, but ipso facto diverse field,[ 8 ] hence any attempt to synthesize or appraise different studies under one system is impossible and conceptually wrong.
From a realism standpoint, Porter then proposes multiple and open approaches for validity in qualitative research that incorporate parallel perspectives[ 43 , 44 ] and diversification of meanings.
In summary, the three gold criteria of validity, reliability and generalizability apply in principle to assess quality for both quantitative and qualitative research, what differs will be the nature and type of processes that ontologically and epistemologically distinguish between the two. Source of Support: Nil. Conflict of Interest: None declared. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.
J Family Med Prim Care. Lawrence Leung 1, 2. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Address for correspondence: Prof. E-mail: ac. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract In general practice, qualitative research contributes as significantly as quantitative research, in particular regarding psycho-social aspects of patient-care, health services provision, policy setting, and health administrations.
Keywords: Controversies, generalizability, primary care research, qualitative research, reliability, validity. Nature of Qualitative Research versus Quantitative Research The essence of qualitative research is to make sense of and recognize patterns among words in order to build up a meaningful picture without compromising its richness and dimensionality.
Impact of Qualitative Research upon Primary Care In many ways, qualitative research contributes significantly, if not more so than quantitative research, to the field of primary care at various levels. Overall Criteria for Quality in Qualitative Research Given the diverse genera and forms of qualitative research, there is no consensus for assessing any piece of qualitative research work.
Reliability In quantitative research, reliability refers to exact replicability of the processes and the results. Generalizability Most qualitative research studies, if not all, are meant to study a specific issue or phenomenon in a certain population or ethnic group, of a focused locality in a particular context, hence generalizability of qualitative research findings is usually not an expected attribute. Food for Thought Despite various measures to enhance or ensure quality of qualitative studies, some researchers opined from a purist ontological and epistemological angle that qualitative research is not a unified, but ipso facto diverse field,[ 8 ] hence any attempt to synthesize or appraise different studies under one system is impossible and conceptually wrong.
Footnotes Source of Support: Nil. References 1. Br J Gen Pract. Physician colorectal cancer screening recommendations: An examination based on informed decision making.
Patient Educ Couns. Streamline triage and manage user expectations: Lessons from a qualitative study of GP out-of-hours services. Evaluating care pathways for community psychiatry in England: A qualitative study. J Eval Clin Pract. Identifying children's health care quality measures for Medicaid and CHIP: An evidence-informed, publicly transparent expert process. Acad Pediatr. Patient difficulty using tablet computers to screen in primary care.
J Gen Intern Med. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: A qualitative study.
The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care. Sage Publications; Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research; pp.
Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. This final step yields the average inter-item correlation.
Split-half reliability is another subtype of internal consistency reliability. Are the findings genuine? Is hand strength a valid measure of intelligence? Almost certainly the answer is "No, it is not. The answer depends on the amount of research support for such a relationship.
Validity encompasses the entire experimental concept and establishes whether the results obtained meet all of the requirements of the scientific research method. For example, there must have been randomization of the sample groups and appropriate care and diligence shown in the allocation of controls.
Internal validity dictates how an experimental design is structured and encompasses all of the steps of the scientific research method. Face Validity Face Validity ascertains that the measure appears to be assessing the intended construct under study. The stakeholders can easily assess face validity. If the stakeholders do not believe the measure is an accurate assessment of the ability, they may become disengaged with the task.
Example: If a measure of art appreciation is created all of the items should be related to the different components and types of art. If the questions are regarding historical time periods, with no reference to any artistic movement, stakeholders may not be motivated to give their best effort or invest in this measure because they do not believe it is a true assessment of art appreciation.
Construct Validity Construct Validity is used to ensure that the measure is actually measure what it is intended to measure i. The experts can examine the items and decide what that specific item is intended to measure. Students can be involved in this process to obtain their feedback.
The questions are written with complicated wording and phrasing. It is important that the measure is actually assessing the intended construct, rather than an extraneous factor.
Criterion-Related Validity Criterion-Related Validity is used to predict future or current performance - it correlates test results with another criterion of interest. Example: If a physics program designed a measure to assess cumulative student learning throughout the major. The new measure could be correlated with a standardized measure of ability in this discipline, such as an ETS field test or the GRE subject test. The higher the correlation between the established measure and new measure, the more faith stakeholders can have in the new assessment tool.
Formative Validity Formative Validity when applied to outcomes assessment it is used to assess how well a measure is able to provide information to help improve the program under study. If the measure can provide information that students are lacking knowledge in a certain area, for instance the Civil Rights Movement, then that assessment tool is providing meaningful information that can be used to improve the course or program requirements.
Sampling Validity Sampling Validity similar to content validity ensures that the measure covers the broad range of areas within the concept under study. Not everything can be covered, so items need to be sampled from all of the domains.
Example: When designing an assessment of learning in the theatre department, it would not be sufficient to only cover issues related to acting. Other areas of theatre such as lighting, sound, functions of stage managers should all be included. The assessment should reflect the content area in its entirety. Ways to improve validity 1. Make sure your goals and objectives are clearly defined and put in operation. Expectations should be written down. Match your assessment measure to your goals and objectives.
Additionally, have the test reviewed. Get respondents involved; have the students look over the assessment for troublesome wording, or other difficulties. If possible, compare your measure with other measures, or data that may be available.
Relationship between reliability and validity If data are valid, they must be reliable. If people receive very different scores on a test every time they take it, the test is not likely to predict anything.
However, if a test is reliable, that does not mean that it is valid. Reliability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for validity. Although they are independent aspects, they are also somewhat related.
0コメント