Women's Health Nursing (여성건강간호학회지)

Korean Society of Women Health Nursing (한국여성건강간호학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Psychometric property of an instrument 1: content validity

측정도구의 심리계량적 속성 1: 내용타당도

  • Received : 2021.01.04
  • Accepted : 2021.01.31
  • Published : 2021.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

내용타당도는 측정도구의 내용이 측정하고자 하는 구성개념을 얼마나 적절히 반영하고 있는가에 대한 것이다. 그 과정은 예비측정 도구 개발 단계와 개발된 것이 측정하고자 하는 구성개념을 잘 반영하는지를 판단하는 단계로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 첫 번째 단계에서는 측정하고자 하는 구성개념에 대한 개념화와 예비질문지 개발이 이루어진다. 그 후, 전문가와 측정도구를 사용하고자 하는 대상자를 대상으로 개발된 예비문항의 관련성, 포괄성, 및 이해성을 판단하게 된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Stevens SS. Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1951.
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Reg. 2009; 74(235):65132-65133.
  3. 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
  4. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35(6):382-385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
  5. Polit DF, Yang FM. Measurement and the measurement of change. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2016.
  6. Terwee CB, Prinsen CA, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159-1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
  7. Lee HJ, Song R, Lee EH, Ann SH. Research methods and critical appraisal. Seoul, KR: Koonja Publishing; 2017.
  8. Lee EH, Tahk SJ, Shin JH, Lee YW, Song R. Development and psychometric evaluation of cardiovascular disease-specific quality of life scale for Koreans. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2007;37(3):313-323. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2007.37.3.313
  9. Yun YH, Park YS, Lee ES, Bang SM, Heo DS, Park SY, et al. Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(4):863-868. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000021692.81214.70
  10. Lee EH, Chun M, Wang HJ, Lim HY, Choi JH. Multidimensional constructs of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-c30) in Korean cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Cancer Res Treat. 2005;37(3):148-156. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2005.37.3.148
  11. Jung YM, Park JH. Development and validation of the cancer-specific posttraumatic growth inventory. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2017;47(3):319-331. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2017.47.3.319
  12. Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing research. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 1991.
  13. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  14. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
  15. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25(5):508-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945903252998
  16. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
  17. Beckstead JW. Content validity is naught. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(9):1274-1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.04.014
  18. 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
  19. Lee J, Lee EH, Chae D, Kim CJ. Patient-reported outcome measures for diabetes self-care: A systematic review of measurement properties. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;105:103498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103498

Cited by

  1. Year in review and appreciation for 2021 reviewers vol.27, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2021.12.13