Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Healeand Twycross 2015 Valandrelquan
Healeand Twycross 2015 Valandrelquan
Healeand Twycross 2015 Valandrelquan
net/publication/280840011
CITATIONS READS
41 266,585
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Alison Twycross on 10 August 2015.
Table 2 Attributes of reliability correlation between the scores each time a participant
Attributes Description completes the test. Generally speaking, a correlation coef-
Homogeneity (or The extent to which all the items ficient of less than 0.3 signifies a weak correlation, 0.3–
internal consistency) on a scale measure one 0.5 is moderate and greater than 0.5 is strong.4
construct Equivalence is assessed through inter-rater reliability.
Stability The consistency of results using This test includes a process for qualitatively determining
an instrument with repeated the level of agreement between two or more observers.
testing
A good example of the process used in assessing inter-
Equivalence Consistency among responses of
rater reliability is the scores of judges for a skating com-
multiple users of an instrument,
or among alternate forms of an petition. The level of consistency across all judges in the
instrument scores given to skating participants is the measure of
inter-rater reliability. An example in research is when
researchers are asked to give a score for the relevancy of
divided in half. Correlations are calculated comparing each item on an instrument. Consistency in their scores
both halves. Strong correlations indicate high reliability, relates to the level of inter-rater reliability of the
while weak correlations indicate the instrument may not instrument.
be reliable. The Kuder-Richardson test is a more compli- Determining how rigorously the issues of reliability
cated version of the split-half test. In this process the and validity have been addressed in a study is an essen-
average of all possible split half combinations is deter- tial component in the critique of research as well as
mined and a correlation between 0–1 is generated. This influencing the decision about whether to implement of
test is more accurate than the split-half test, but can the study findings into nursing practice. In quantitative
only be completed on questions with two answers (eg, studies, rigour is determined through an evaluation of
yes or no, 0 or 1).3 the validity and reliability of the tools or instruments
Cronbach’s α is the most commonly used test to utilised in the study. A good quality research study will
determine the internal consistency of an instrument. In provide evidence of how all these factors have been
this test, the average of all correlations in every combin- addressed. This will help you to assess the validity and
ation of split-halves is determined. Instruments with reliability of the research and help you decide whether
questions that have more than two responses can be or not you should apply the findings in your area of
used in this test. The Cronbach’s α result is a number clinical practice.
between 0 and 1. An acceptable reliability score is one
that is 0.7 and higher.1 3 Twitter Follow Roberta Heale at @robertaheale and
Stability is tested using test–retest and parallel or Alison Twycross at @alitwy
alternate-form reliability testing. Test–retest reliability is
assessed when an instrument is given to the same Competing interests None declared.
participants more than once under similar circumstances.
A statistical comparison is made between participant’s References
test scores for each of the times they have completed it. 1. Lobiondo-Wood G, Haber J. Nursing research in Canada.
This provides an indication of the reliability of the instru- Methods, critical appraisal, and utilization. 3rd Canadian edn.
Toronto: Elsevier, 2013.
ment. Parallel-form reliability (or alternate-form reliabil-
2. Korb K. Conducting Educational Research. Validity of
ity) is similar to test–retest reliability except that a
Instruments. 2012. http://korbedpsych.com/R09eValidity.html
different form of the original instrument is given to parti- 3. Shuttleworth M. Internal Consistency Reliability. 2015. https://
cipants in subsequent tests. The domain, or concepts explorable.com/internal-consistency-reliability
being tested are the same in both versions of the instru- 4. Laerd Statistics. Determining the correlation coefficient. 2013.
ment but the wording of items is different.2 For an instru- https://statistics.laerd.com/premium/pc/pearson-correlation-in-
ment to demonstrate stability there should be a high spss-8.php
Evid Based Nurs 2015 18: 66-67 originally published online May 15, 2015
doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102129
These include:
Email alerting Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
service box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes