The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Health Measurement Scales
Abstract
This book covers in detail how to develop a measurement scale: a questionnaire or instrument, with specific applications in health sciences. Its organization follows the steps developers will go through during the process beginning with how the individual items are developed, and the various biases that can affect responses (e.g., social desirability, yea-saying, framing). It then discusses different response options, such as Likert scales, adjectival scales, visual analogue scales, Harter scales, and face scales, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. The book then explains how to select the best items in the set, using various psychometric criteria; and how to combine the individual items into a scale. There is much discussion of reliability and validity, from both a theoretical and statistical perspective, with a separate chapter on generalizability theory. Although the perspective is that of classical test theory, there is also an in-depth presentation of item response theory. It concludes with a discussion of ethical issues that may be encountered in developing and using scales; and presents guidelines for reporting the results of the scale development process. In the appendices there is a comprehensive guide to finding existing scales, and a brief introduction to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The final sample of 295 participants ensured adequate statistical power for estimating reliability and validity (Streiner & Norman, 2008).”
From Predicting Levels of Policy Advocacy Engagement Among Acute-Care Health Professionals (2016) · cites this paper as Streiner & Norman, 2008
In the citing paper
“because coefficient alpha increases with the number of items [12]”
From SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (2019) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Like internal consistency, reliability increases with the number of items [12], and there is a trade-off between simplicity (e.g., a small number of items) and reliability.”
From SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (2019) · cites this paper as [12]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 · Cited by 10,764
Spruit, M. A., Singh, S. J., Garvey, C., ZuWallack, R., Nici, L., Rochester, C., Hill, K., Holland, A. E., Lareau, S. C., Man, W. D.-C., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201309-1634st · Cited by 3,938
SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles
Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8 · Cited by 3,469
Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x · Cited by 3,322
Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Mokkink, L. B. (2018) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 · Cited by 2,348
Metadata
- Authors
- Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R.
- ORCID
- Streiner, David L.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2008-09-04
- OpenAlex
- W3146566578
- Cited by
- 2,631
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 138 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 107 · 2018: 152 · 2017: 149 · 2016: 199 · 2015: 239 · 2014: 287 · 2013: 252 · 2012: 210
- FWCI
- 84.34
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Keywords
- scale development, questionnaire design, health measurement, item development, response bias, social desirability bias, framing effects, Likert scale, visual analogue scale, face scale, item selection, reliability statistics, validity, generalizability theory, classical test theory, item response theory, research ethics, factor analysis
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