The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Incremental Validity of New Clinical Assessment Measures.
Abstract
The authors address conceptual and methodological foundations of incremental validity in the evaluation of newly developed clinical assessment measures. Incremental validity is defined as the degree to which a measure explains or predicts a phenomenon of interest, relative to other measures. Incremental validity can be evaluated on several dimensions, such as sensitivity to change, diagnostic efficacy, content validity, treatment design and outcome, and convergent validity. Indices of incremental validity can vary depending on the criterion measures, comparison measures, and individual differences in samples. The authors review the rationale for, principles, and methods of incremental validation, including the selection of comparison and criterion measures, and address data analytic strategies and the conditional nature of incremental validity evaluations in the selection of measures. Incremental validity contributes to, but is different from, cost-benefits, which reflect the cost of acquiring the data and the benefits from the data. The impact of an incremental validity index on whether a measure is selected will be moderated by the cost of acquiring the new data, the importance of the measured phenomenon, and the clinical utility of the new data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.238 · Cited by 2,387 · cited 1×
“The failure of an instrument to cover all facets of a multifaceted construct, the representativeness of items (one aspect of content validity, Haynes et al., 1995), is a forceful rationale for the development of a new measure (Strom et al., 1987).”
BackgroundSelf-citationIncremental Validity Principles in Test Construction.
Smith, G. T., Fischer, S., & Fister, S. M. (2003) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.467 · Cited by 205 · cited 4×
“This process presumably results in a homogeneous, internally consistent, and robust measure that taps the intended construct with minimal error (see Smith et al., 2003, for recommendations regarding instrument development).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Predictive Validity of Parent and Teacher Reports of ADHD Symptoms
Power, T. J., Doherty, B. J., Panichelli-Mindel, S. M., Karustis, J. L., Eiraldi, R. B., Anastopoulos, A. D., & DuPaul, G. J. (1998) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1023/a:1023035426642 · Cited by 108
Floyd, F. J., O'Farrell, T. J., & Goldberg, M. (1987) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.55.3.2200 · Cited by 34
Cited by
Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 · Cited by 7,511
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316665461 · Cited by 1,364
The development and initial validation of the cognitive fusion questionnaire
Gillanders, D. T., Bolderston, H., Bond, F. W., Dempster, M., Flaxman, P. E., Campbell, L., Kerr, S., Tansey, L., Noel, P., Ferenbach, C., et al. (2014) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2013.09.001 · Cited by 837
Netemeyer, R. G., Warmath, D., Fernandes, D., & Lynch, J. G. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx109 · Cited by 842
Adler, J. M., Lodi-Smith, J., Philippe, F. L., & Houle, I. (2016) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868315585068 · Cited by 618
Metadata
- Authors
- Haynes, S. N., & Lench, H. C.
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 456-466
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2103242737
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 13.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
