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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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…

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 10.1097/00006199-200609000-00007 · DOI
  2. 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572 · DOI · Paper page
  3. DiCenso A., 2005, Evidence‐based nursing, 432
  4. DeVellis R.F., 2003, Scale development: Theory and application
  5. 10.1097/00008483-200303000-00010 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/nur.4770130612 · DOI
  7. 10.1097/00006199-200507000-00009 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/074811801750058609 · DOI
  9. 10.1023/A:1025809921592 · DOI
  10. Hulley S.B., 2001, Designing clinical research: An epidemiologic approach
  11. 10.1177/0193945905284726 · DOI
  12. 10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1081/CNV-120005902 · DOI
  14. Munro B.H., 2005, Statistical methods for health care research
  15. 10.4135/9781412985772 · DOI
  16. 10.1097/00024665-200211000-00013 · DOI
  17. Nunnally J.C., 1994, Psychometric theory
  18. 10.1097/00008483-200311000-00008 · DOI
  19. 10.1891/jnum.2005.13.2.147 · DOI
  20. Polit D.F., 2004, Nursing research: Principles and methods
  21. 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00061.x · DOI
  22. Schultz K.S., 2005, Measurement theory in action
  23. 10.1097/00006199-200511000-00008 · DOI
  24. Trochim W.M.K., 2001, The research methods knowledge base
  25. Waltz C.F., 2005, Measurement in nursing and health research

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,889

Metadata

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.
ORCID
DeVon, Holli A.
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
DOI
10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x
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
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Nursing Scholarship (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePublications at Regis University (Regis University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › 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