...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Western journal of nursing research >Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity.
【24h】

Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity.

机译：两种用于评估内容有效性的定量方法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Instrument content validity is often established through qualitative expert reviews, yet quantitative analysis of reviewer agreements is also advocated in the literature. Two quantitative approaches to content validity estimations were compared and contrasted using a newly developed instrument called the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tool (ORAT). Data obtained from a panel of eight expert judges were analyzed. A Content Validity Index (CVI) initially determined that only one item lacked interrater proportion agreement about its relevance to the instrument as a whole (CVI = 0.57). Concern that higher proportion agreement ratings might be due to random chance stimulated further analysis using a multirater kappa coefficient of agreement. An additional seven items had low kappas, ranging from 0.29 to 0.48 and indicating poor agreement among the experts. The findings supported the elimination or revision of eight items. Pros and cons to using both proportion agreement and kappa coefficient analysis are examined.
机译：仪器内容的有效性通常是通过定性专家评审来确定的，但文献中也提倡对评审者协议进行定量分析。使用一种新开发的称为骨质疏松症风险评估工具（ORAT）的仪器，对两种评估含量有效性的定量方法进行了比较和对比。分析了由八名专家法官组成的小组获得的数据。内容有效性指数（CVI）最初确定，只有一项缺乏关于其与整个文书的相关性的跨度比例一致性（CVI = 0.57）。考虑到较高比例的协议评级可能是由于随机机会而引起的，因此需要使用协议的多评价者κ系数进行进一步分析。另外七个项目的卡巴值较低，范围从0.29至0.48，表明专家之间的一致性差。调查结果支持删除或修订八个项目。研究了同时使用比例一致性和kappa系数分析的利弊。

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