IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v47y2013i1p57-78.html

Integrated analysis of content and construct validity of psychometric instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Byron Gajewski

  • Larry Price
  • Valorie Coffland
  • Diane Boyle
  • Marjorie Bott

Abstract

Establishing adequacy of psychometric properties of an instrument involves acquisition and evaluation of evidence based on item content and internal structure. Content validity evidence consists of subject matter experts providing quantitative ratings of the extent to which items are a representative sample of targeted domain. Evidence of internal structure includes factor analytic studies and examination of item interrelationships based on item responses from participants. Although subject matter expert ratings and participant response data are traditionally analyzed separately, each serves to inform the other in important ways. We propose integrating subject matter experts’ and participants’ data seamlessly to establish a unified model of validity evidence. The approach is applied to an instrument designed to measure nursing home culture change (i.e., resident-centered care). The proposed method has been demonstrated to be useful with a posterior distribution resulting in stable estimates of psychometric parameters superior to traditional analytic approaches. To illustrate the efficacy of the methodology, we present a simulation study and discuss its place in psychometric methods. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Byron Gajewski & Larry Price & Valorie Coffland & Diane Boyle & Marjorie Bott, 2013. "Integrated analysis of content and construct validity of psychometric instruments," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 57-78, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:1:p:57-78
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9503-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-011-9503-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-011-9503-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sik-Yum Lee, 1981. "A bayesian approach to confirmatory factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 153-160, June.
    2. Garthwaite, Paul H. & Kadane, Joseph B. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2005. "Statistical Methods for Eliciting Probability Distributions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 680-701, June.
    3. Susan Embretson, 1999. "Generating items during testing: Psychometric issues and models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 64(4), pages 407-433, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ester Gilart & Isabel Lepiani & María Dueñas & Maria José Cantizano Nuñez & Belen Gutierrez Baena & Anna Bocchino, 2022. "Bereavement Needs Assessment in Nurses: Elaboration and Content Validation of a Professional Traumatic Grief Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-15, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    2. Julia R. Falconer & Eibe Frank & Devon L. L. Polaschek & Chaitanya Joshi, 2022. "Methods for Eliciting Informative Prior Distributions: A Critical Review," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 189-204, September.
    3. Sheng Wu & Weng Kee Wong & Catherine M. Crespi, 2017. "Maximin optimal designs for cluster randomized trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 916-926, September.
    4. Jacobs, Michael & Kiefer, Nicholas M., 2010. "The Bayesian Approach to Default Risk: A Guide," Working Papers 10-01, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
    5. Claire Copeland & Britta Turner & Gareth Powells & Kevin Wilson, 2022. "In Search of Complementarity: Insights from an Exercise in Quantifying Qualitative Energy Futures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Nicholas Tibor Longford, 2016. "Decision Theory Applied to Selecting the Winners, Ranking, and Classification," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 41(4), pages 420-442, August.
    7. Robert Stewart & Marie Urban & Samantha Duchscherer & Jason Kaufman & April Morton & Gautam Thakur & Jesse Piburn & Jessica Moehl, 2016. "A Bayesian machine learning model for estimating building occupancy from open source data," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(3), pages 1929-1956, April.
    8. Jesus Palomo & David Rios Insua & Fabrizio Ruggeri, 2007. "Modeling External Risks in Project Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 961-978, August.
    9. Abhinav B. Agrawal & Kash Barker & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2011. "Adaptive multiplayer approach for risk‐based decision‐making: 2006 Virginia Gubernatorial Inauguration," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 455-470, December.
    10. Mitchell J. Small, 2008. "Methods for Assessing Uncertainty in Fundamental Assumptions and Associated Models for Cancer Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1289-1308, October.
    11. Nicholas M. Kiefer, 2011. "Default estimation, correlated defaults, and expert information," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 173-192, March.
    12. Ross Gruetzemacher & Kang Bok Lee & David Paradice, 2024. "Calibration training for improving probabilistic judgments using an interactive app," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), June.
    13. Diana Mindrila, 2023. "Bayesian Latent Class Analysis: Sample Size, Model Size, and Classification Precision," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    14. Miller, Joshua Benjamin & Sanjurjo, Adam, 2018. "How Experience Confirms the Gambler's Fallacy when Sample Size is Neglected," OSF Preprints m5xsk, Center for Open Science.
    15. Dai, Min & Jia, Yanwei & Kou, Steven, 2021. "The wisdom of the crowd and prediction markets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 561-578.
    16. A Zuashkiani & D Banjevic & A K S Jardine, 2009. "Estimating parameters of proportional hazards model based on expert knowledge and statistical data," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(12), pages 1621-1636, December.
    17. Hathout, Michel & Vuillet, Marc & Carvajal, Claudio & Peyras, Laurent & Diab, Youssef, 2019. "Expert judgments calibration and combination for assessment of river levee failure probability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 377-392.
    18. Longford Nicholas T., 2015. "Policy-Oriented Inference and the Analyst-Client Cooperation. An Example from Small-Area Statistics," Statistics in Transition New Series, Statistics Poland, vol. 16(1), pages 65-82, March.
    19. Li Hao & Daniel Houser, 2012. "Belief elicitation in the presence of naïve respondents: An experimental study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 161-180, April.
    20. Werner, Christoph & Bedford, Tim & Cooke, Roger M. & Hanea, Anca M. & Morales-Nápoles, Oswaldo, 2017. "Expert judgement for dependence in probabilistic modelling: A systematic literature review and future research directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 801-819.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:47:y:2013:i:1:p:57-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.