Literature DB >> 24628841

Discriminant content validity: a quantitative methodology for assessing content of theory-based measures, with illustrative applications.

Marie Johnston1, Diane Dixon, Jo Hart, Liz Glidewell, Carin Schröder, Beth Pollard.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In studies involving theoretical constructs, it is important that measures have good content validity and that there is not contamination of measures by content from other constructs. While reliability and construct validity are routinely reported, to date, there has not been a satisfactory, transparent, and systematic method of assessing and reporting content validity. In this paper, we describe a methodology of discriminant content validity (DCV) and illustrate its application in three studies.
METHODS: Discriminant content validity involves six steps: construct definition, item selection, judge identification, judgement format, single-sample test of content validity, and assessment of discriminant items. In three studies, these steps were applied to a measure of illness perceptions (IPQ-R) and control cognitions.
RESULTS: The IPQ-R performed well with most items being purely related to their target construct, although timeline and consequences had small problems. By contrast, the study of control cognitions identified problems in measuring constructs independently. In the final study, direct estimation response formats for theory of planned behaviour constructs were found to have as good DCV as Likert format.
CONCLUSIONS: The DCV method allowed quantitative assessment of each item and can therefore inform the content validity of the measures assessed. The methods can be applied to assess content validity before or after collecting data to select the appropriate items to measure theoretical constructs. Further, the data reported for each item in Appendix S1 can be used in item or measure selection. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? There are agreed methods of assessing and reporting construct validity of measures of theoretical constructs, but not their content validity. Content validity is rarely reported in a systematic and transparent manner. What does this study add? The paper proposes discriminant content validity (DCV), a systematic and transparent method of assessing and reporting whether items assess the intended theoretical construct and only that construct. In three studies, DCV was applied to measures of illness perceptions, control cognitions, and theory of planned behaviour response formats. Appendix S1 gives content validity indices for each item of each questionnaire investigated. Discriminant content validity is ideally applied while the measure is being developed, before using to measure the construct(s), but can also be applied after using a measure.
© 2014 The British Psychological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  content validity; measurement; psychometrics; questionnaires; theory; validity

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24628841     DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Health Psychol        ISSN: 1359-107X


  16 in total

1.  The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual analysis and recommendations for future research.

Authors:  David M Williams; Ryan E Rhodes
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2014-08-12

Review 2.  Oral Hygiene Facilitators and Barriers in Greek 10 Years Old Schoolchildren.

Authors:  Matina Angelopoulou; Katerina Kavvadia; Constantine Oulis; Christina Reppa
Journal:  Int J Clin Pediatr Dent       Date:  2015-08-11

3.  Medication risk communication with cancer patients in a Middle East cancer care setting.

Authors:  Kerry Wilbur; Maha Al-Okka; Ebaa Jumaat; Nesma Eissa; Merwa Elbashir; Sumaya M Al Saadi Al-Yafei
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 4.  Associations between psychological factors and health-related quality of life and global quality of life in patients with ALS: a systematic review.

Authors:  Annerieke C van Groenestijn; Esther T Kruitwagen-van Reenen; Johanna M A Visser-Meily; Leonard H van den Berg; Carin D Schröder
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 3.186

5.  What Do You Think You Are Measuring? A Mixed-Methods Procedure for Assessing the Content Validity of Test Items and Theory-Based Scaling.

Authors:  Ingrid Koller; Michael R Levenson; Judith Glück
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-02-21

6.  A factorial randomised controlled trial to identify efficacious self-regulation techniques in an e- and m-health intervention to target an active lifestyle: study protocol.

Authors:  Helene Schroé; Celien Van der Mispel; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Maïté Verloigne; Louise Poppe; Geert Crombez
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Study protocol for the validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of listening effort in cochlear implantation: the Listening Effort Questionnaire-Cochlear Implant (LEQ-CI).

Authors:  Sarah E Hughes; Frances Rapport; Alan Watkins; Isabelle Boisvert; Catherine M McMahon; Hayley A Hutchings
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  How well does the theory of planned behaviour predict alcohol consumption? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Richard Cooke; Mary Dahdah; Paul Norman; David P French
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2014-09-17

9.  The Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool: development and reliability testing of a method for service monitoring and organisational learning.

Authors:  Alex Gillespie; Tom W Reader
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 7.035

10.  What do alexithymia items measure? A discriminant content validity study of the Toronto-alexithymia-scale-20.

Authors:  Elke Veirman; Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem; Gregory Verleysen; Annick L De Paepe; Geert Crombez
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.