Reliability And Validity Assessment

Reliability And Validity AssessmentWhat forms of reliableness and severeness do Grogan et al. (2000) establish for their patient satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ) handbill? soon (one paragraph from each one) review the forms ceremonious.1) Grogan et al.s (2000) chose an internal dependableness to nonice for the amity or inconsistency of their inter-subscales. They performed Cronbachs alpha abbreviation to nib the correlation of each subscales on the general satisfaction subscale. The resolvings showed a mettlesome level of correlation co efficient, which pad between .74-.95, indicating that the subscales argon internally reliable. Using internal reliability (Cronbachs alpha) is efficient and most widely employ, however, the ex rackion of its outgrowth could notwithstanding be in equipment casualty of consistency and inconsistency. Moreover, the Cronbachs alpha allows items to be discarded from the analysis tho to get a better alpha revalue (Vehkalnti, 2004). Furthe rmore, the bounty result showed a strong alpha value of doctor subscale (.95), therefore, it is reasonable to discharge doctor subscale from the five-factor public, since it is very similar to the general satisfaction subscale.2) Grogan et al. (2000) chose an internal hardihood way of assessment (focusing on the inference from the ca single-valued function and effect of a variable on another variable). Grogan et al. used a construct stiffness test by using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), the Pearsons yield moment correlation (PPMC), and the Analysis of Covariance (ANOVA). The CFA was used to identify the approximate familiarity of the 40 items to fit on the appropriate factor of the five-factor model (doctors, nurses, access, appointments, and facilities), which was suggested to body patients satisfaction. The result showed a low value of measure and high value of non-normed fit index (NNFI), which indicated that the items were having a honourable fit with the five- factor model. The PPMC test was used to look at the correlation of the subscale on the general satisfaction subscale. The result showed a positive signifi backt correlation, which means ANOVA was used to equivalence the five antithetic subgroups (patients divided according to age) on the 46-items satisfaction scores. The results showed a operative difference of age group, with a greater satisfaction of sr. patients on the help provision, than younger patients. Construct daring is widely use because its relevant and clear beats, but the present study did not measure a low correlation scores of items to indicate that the items were irrelevant. Moreover, construct boldness is also subjective (in terms of judging the items, where the researchers believe that the items measure what they estimate to measure).Also briefly review other forms that might be established and how this might be achieved.1) Test-retest reliability might be another good way to test for reliability of items measurements. This can be done by giving the questionnaire to the same respondents (patients) at diverse occasions, preferably three months subsequently the initial test (Kline, 1993). The correlation of scores between the two tests can be compared. If the correlation coefficient is high, this means that the questionnaire (the subscale items) are reliable and consistence. This can be done by analysing the Cronbachs alpha value, which needs to be greater than .70 to be reliable but not greater than 1 (preferably not greater than .95). Moreover, test-retest should not only be carried out to the patients who had full respondent order but also to those who had partially respondent rates (17% of the patients), just to check the presence of any specific group of patients that might think the questionnaire was not reliable to them.2) Alternate-form of reliability can be used to assess reliability of the items, which can be done by using a different wording for each of the items (but ha ving the same meaning) to measure the patients satisfaction based on the five-factor dimensions. According to Litwin (1995), the items created should not be identical but similar to each other, and the test should be his should be given to the same patients at different times. The correlation between their scores will show the reliability of the measurement of the questionnaire. By looking at Cronbachs alpha, high correlation of the items indicates high consistency of measurement.3) Interobserver reliability is a method that can be used to mold how well the inter-subscale is (Litwin, 1995), which measures how the five-factor domains agree with the 46-items questionnaire, by allow the professionals from each domains (such as the doctors, nurse, throng who responsible for the environment factor, people responsible for the access factor, and people who are responsible to provide the facilities) to answer the questionnaire to assess their own satisfaction of the service provision. The data can be analysed by using Pearsons correlation to pay off out the correlation coefficient of the items and the satisfaction. High correlation indicates higher reliability of the subscale.4) immaterial ways of assessing the validity would be good to mentioned, in which the inter-subscale can be generalized across different patients, places and times. This can be achieved by doing a sampling model and proximal similarity model approaches, in which the questionnaire is for the first time distributed to a sample population, then to its nearby population, and lastly to the outside population. The analysis of scores from these populations can be done by using ANOVA, and the significant correlation can be revealed. If their correlation is significant (p 5) Criterion validity is a good way of analysing the researchs validity as poor measuring tests would lead to inefficient technique of measurement. It has two major forms predictive validity and co-occurrent validity. The predicti ve validity can be applied to arrest out how well the service of general practitioners could predict the patients satisfaction in the future. This can be done by asking the five domain factors (doctors, nurses, etc) and the patients to fill in the questionnaire separately. Then, the scores will be calculated by factor analysis (CFA) to see if the domain factors fit with five-factor model and by the PPMC to see the correlation on satisfaction. If the domains score fits with the model and have high correlation coefficient, this could predict that the patients score would also be similar. In contrast, concurrent validity cannot be applied because it could not be compared to the gold-standard questionnaire of patients satisfaction as it was none.6) Content validity can be addressed in terms of finding how adequate the items are to reflect its domain. This can be examined by using CFA, in which it is to find the proximate bopledge of the items adequacy (i.e. to know which specific five -factor domain was the item belongs to).7) Method bias to measure the present of any biased items in the questionnaire. This can be done by using logistic regression. The items are considered to be biased if they have characteristics that only allow the respondent to give a certain answers, bias to the read of the study.REFERENCESCarmines, E. G. Richard, A. Z. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. London Sage.Grogan, S., Conner, M., Norman, P., Porter, I. (2000). Validation of a questionnaire measuring patient satisfaction with general practitioner services. Quality in Health Care, 9, 210-215.Kane, T. M. (2001). underway concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319-342.Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research. London Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction. New York Methuen.Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. New York Routledge.Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. London Sage.Loewenthal, K. M. (2001). An introduction to psychological tests and scales. Hove Psychology press .Rubin, H. R., Gandek, B., Rogers, W. H. (1993. Patients ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings Results from the medical outcomes study. Journal of the American medical checkup Association, 270, 835-840.Vehkalahti, K. (2000) Reliability of Measurement Scales. Retrived November 18, 2009, fromhttp//ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/val/tilas/vk/vehkalahti/