...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science >Reliability and validity revisited
【24h】

Reliability and validity revisited

机译：重新探讨信度和效度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Evaluation of findings of ergonomics research in terms of their reliability and validityrnappears to be a multifarious endeavour. In their commentaries, the three reviewers showrnlittle overlap. This implies that involvement of more peers may be expected to furtherrnraise the diversity of the issues addressed, rather than to show saturation (see Kanis 2011,rn343, for a similar mechanism in estimating the number of different usability problems).rnAs outlined in the target paper, the evaluation of research findings in ergonomics isrnfraught with deficiencies. This is not disputed by the peers, which may indicate that thernpoor level of the evaluation practice of research findings in ergonomics is commonrnknowledge or may even go largely unrecognised. Obviously, this is not to say that labellingrnthe perfunctory claims of positive evaluations of the findings as ‘rhetoric’ would berngenerally welcomed. What we can hope for is that the present study provides a freshrnapproach to an ongoing discussion of reliability and validity as the basic criteria in thernevaluation of research findings in E/HF.
机译：评估人体工程学研究结果的可靠性和有效性似乎是一项艰巨的工作。在他们的评论中，三位评论者表现出很少的重叠。这意味着可以预期会有更多的同行参与进来，进一步提高所解决问题的多样性，而不是表现出饱和（参见Kanis 2011，rn343，一种类似的机制来估计不同的可用性问题的数量）。在论文中，对人体工程学研究结果的评估存在缺陷。这在同行中没有争议，这可能表明人体工程学中研究结果的评估实践的水平较低是普遍的知识，甚至可能在很大程度上未被认可。显然，这并不是说人们普遍欢迎将对发现的积极评价的敷衍说法称为“修辞论”。我们可以希望的是，本研究为正在进行的可靠性和有效性讨论提供了一种新方法，可靠性和有效性是对E / HF研究结果进行重新评估的基本标准。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号