内容有效性
比例(比率)
内容(测量理论)
索引(排版)
一致性(知识库)
相关性(法律)
心理学
推论
计算机科学
标准效度
非概率抽样
内部一致性
应用心理学
情报检索
心理测量学
临床心理学
数学
医学
人工智能
万维网
数学分析
物理
量子力学
人口
环境卫生
政治学
法学
作者
Denise F. Polit,Cheryl Tatano Beck
摘要
Scale developers often provide evidence of content validity by computing a content validity index (CVI), using ratings of item relevance by content experts. We analyzed how nurse researchers have defined and calculated the CVI, and found considerable consistency for item-level CVIs (I-CVIs). However, there are two alternative, but unacknowledged, methods of computing the scale-level index (S-CVI). One method requires universal agreement among experts, but a less conservative method averages the item-level CVIs. Using backward inference with a purposive sample of scale development studies, we found that both methods are being used by nurse researchers, although it was not always possible to infer the calculation method. The two approaches can lead to different values, making it risky to draw conclusions about content validity. Scale developers should indicate which method was used to provide readers with interpretable content validity information.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI