Cited by 1,889Health Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingReliability and Agreement in Measurement

A Psychometric Toolbox for Testing Validity and Reliability

DeVon, Holli A., Block, Michelle E., Moyle‐Wright, Patricia, Ernst, Diane M., Hayden, Susan J., Lazzara, Deborah J., Savoy, Suzanne M., Kostas‐Polston, Elizabeth·2007·Journal of Nursing Scholarship

Abstract

Purpose To review the concepts of reliability and validity, provide examples of how the concepts have been used in nursing research, provide guidance for improving the psychometric soundness of instruments, and report suggestions from editors of nursing journals for incorporating psychometric data into manuscripts. Methods CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases were searched using key words: validity, reliability, and psychometrics. Nursing research articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in the last 5 years, quantitative methods were used, and statistical evidence of psychometric properties were reported. Reports of strong psychometric properties of instruments were identified as well as those with little supporting evidence of psychometric soundness. Findings Reports frequently indicated content validity but sometimes the studies had fewer than five experts for review. Criterion validity was rarely reported and errors in the measurement of the criterion were identified. Construct validity remains underreported. Most reports indicated internal consistency reliability (alpha) but few reports included reliability testing for stability. When retest reliability was asserted, time intervals and correlations were frequently not included. Conclusions Planning for psychometric testing through design and reducing nonrandom error in measurement will add to the reliability and validity of instruments and increase the strength of study findings. Underreporting of va…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Survey questions were derived from two previous studies on the topic, contributing to both content and face validity.

    “Questions were derived from the two previous studies on the topic (Wilson et al. 2010(Wilson et al. , 2013)), thus contributing to both content and face validity (DeVon et al. 2007).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle‐Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J., Savoy, S. M., & Kostas‐Polston, E.
Affiliations
Purdue University Northwest (US)
Corresponding author
  • DeVon, Holli A.
  • Block, Michelle E.
  • Moyle‐Wright, Patricia
  • Ernst, Diane M.
  • Hayden, Susan J.
  • Lazzara, Deborah J.
  • Savoy, Suzanne M.
Venue
Journal of Nursing Scholarship
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-05-23
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
155-164
ISSN
  • 0363-2792 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-6546
  • 1547-5069
OpenAlex
W2162602057
Cited by
1,889
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 186 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 148 · 2021: 163 · 2020: 145 · 2019: 144 · 2018: 131 · 2017: 113 · 2016: 96 · 2015: 105 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 40
FWCI
15.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Nursing Scholarship (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePublications at Regis University (Regis University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
psychometric properties, reliability statistics, validity, content validity, criterion validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, nursing equipment, nursing research
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Mathematics, Periodicals as Topic, Planning Techniques, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychometrics, Research Design, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Nursing Research, Bias, Discriminant Analysis, Guidelines as Topic, Peer Review, Research, Statistics, Nonparametric, Editorial Policies

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