여성건강간호학회지 (Women's Health Nursing)

  • 제27권4호
  • /
  • Pages.275-277
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 3022-7666(pISSN)
  • /
  • 3022-8247(eISSN)
한국여성건강간호학회 (Korean Society of Women Health Nursing)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

측정도구의 심리계량적 속성 4: 신뢰도와 반응도

Psychometric property of an instrument 4: reliability and responsiveness

  • 투고 : 2021.08.12
  • 심사 : 2021.08.18
  • 발행 : 2021.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

For test-retest reliability, it is important to consider whether the attributes of the construct being measured is temporally stable or not. For responsiveness, it needs a longitudinal study design including a treatment/intervention known to induce a change on the construct to be measured.

키워드

과제정보

This research was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT) (NRF-2021R1A2B5B01001603). The funder did not play any role in the conduct or publication of the study.

참고문헌

  1. Bruton A, Conway JH, Holgate ST. Reliability: what is it, and how is it measured? Physiotheraphy. 2000;86:94-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)61211-4
  2. Polit DF, Yang FM. Measurement and the measurement of change. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015. p. 352.
  3. Lee EH, Moon SH, Cho MS, Park ES, Kim SY, Han JS, et al. The 21-item and 12-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: psychometric evaluation in a Korean population. Asian Nurs Res. 2019;13(1):30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2018.11.006
  4. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
  5. Lee EH, Kang EH, Kang HJ. Evaluation of studies on the measurement properties of self-reported instruments. Asian Nurs Res. 2020;14(5):267-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2020.11.004
  6. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. p. 400.
  7. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4(4):293-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01593882
  8. Norman GR. Issues in the use of change scores in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(11):1097-1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(89)90051-6
  9. Stockler MR, Osoba D, Goodwin P, Corey P, Tannock IF. Responsiveness to change in health-related quality of life in a randomized clinical trial: a comparison of the Prostate Cancer Specific Quality of Life Instrument (PROSQOLI) with analogous scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a trial specific module. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(2):137-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00269-2
  10. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. London: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 350.
  11. Lee EH, Kim SH, Choi JH, Jee YK, Nahm DH, Park HS. Development and evaluation of an Asthma-Specific Quality of Life (A-QOL) questionnaire. J Asthma. 2009;46(7):716-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02770900903067887