Measurement

Facilitated by:
Roberto C. Sombillo RN, PhD
Measurement

• involves rules for assigning numbers to

qualities of objects to designate the
quantity of the attribute.
• Attributes do not inherently have
numeric values; humans invent rules to
measure attributes.
Measurement

• requires numbers to be assigned to

objects according to rules.
• For example: temperature, weight, and
other physical attributes
Advantages of
Measurement A major strength of measurement is that it
removes guesswork and ambiguity in gathering
and communicating information

Measurement also makes it possible to obtain

reasonably precise information

Measurement is a language of communication.

Numbers are less vague than words and can
thus communicate information more clearly
Levels of Measurement

1. Nominal measurement: the lowest

level, involves using numbers simply
to categorize attributes.
Examples of variables that are nominally
measured include gender and blood type.
Characteristics

• The numbers used in nominal

measurement do not have quantitative
meaning.
• If we coded males as 1 and females as
2, the numbers would not have
quantitative implications—the number
2 does not mean “more than” 1.
Characteristics
• Nominal measurement provides information only about categorical
equivalence and nonequivalence and so the numbers cannot be treated
mathematically.
• It is nonsensical, for example, to compute the average gender of the
sample by adding the numeric values of the codes and dividing by the
number of participants
Levels of
Measurement 2. Ordinal measurement ranks objects based on their relative standing
on an attribute.

If a researcher orders people from heaviest to lightest, this is ordinal

measurement.

As another example, consider this ordinal coding scheme for measuring

ability to perform activities of daily living: 1 completely dependent; 2
needs another person’s assistance; 3 needs mechanical assistance; and
4 completely independent.

The numbers signify incremental ability to perform activities of daily

living independently.
Characteristics
Ordinal measurement does not, however, tell
us how much greater one level is than
another.

For example, we do not know if being

completely independent is twice as good as
needing mechanical assistance.

As with nominal measures, the mathematic

operations permissible with ordinal-level
data are restricted.
 3. Interval measurement occurs when
researchers can specify the ranking of
objects on an attribute and the distance
between those objects.

Levels of
Measurement
Most educational and psychological tests
yield interval-level measures.
Example
• Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale—a standardized intelligence (IQ) test used
in many countries—is an interval measure. A score of 140 on the Stanford-
Binet is higher than a score of 120, which, in turn, is higher than 100.
• Moreover, the difference between 140 and 120 is presumed to be equivalent to
the difference between 120 and 100. Interval scales expand analytic
possibilities: interval-level data can be averaged meaningfully.
 4. Ratio measurement is the highest level.
Ratio scales, unlike interval scales, have a
Level of rational, meaningful zero and therefore
provide information about the absolute
Measurement magnitude of the attribute.

The Fahrenheit scale for measuring

temperature (interval measurement) has an
arbitrary zero point
 Zero on the thermometer does not signify the absence
of heat; it would not be appropriate to say that 60°F is
twice as hot as 30°F.

Ratio Level Many physical measures, however, are ratio measures

with a real zero. A person’s weight, for example, is a
ratio measure. It is acceptable to say that someone who
weighs 200 pounds is twice as heavy as someone who
weighs 100 pounds.

Statistical procedures suitable for interval data are

also appropriate for ratio-level data.
Ratio Level
• Researchers usually strive to use the highest levels of measurement
possible, especially for their dependent variables—because higher
levels yield more information and are amenable to more powerful
analyses than lower levels.
 The reliability of a quantitative measure is a major
criterion for assessing its quality.

Reliability
Reliability is the consistency with which an
instrument measures the attribute.

If a scale weighed a person at 120 pounds one

minute and 150 pounds the next, we would consider
it unreliable. The less variation an instrument
produces in repeated measurements, the higher its
reliability.
 Reliability also concerns a measure’s
accuracy.

An instrument is reliable to the extent that its

Reliability measures reflect true scores, that is, to the
extent that measurement errors are absent
from obtained scores.

A reliable instrument maximizes the true

score component and minimizes the error
component of an obtained score.
 Stability

Aspects of
The stability of an instrument is the extent to which similar
Reliability results are obtained on two separate occasions.

The reliability estimate focuses on the instrument’s

susceptibility to extraneous influences over time

Assessments of stability are made through test–retest

reliability procedures. Researchers administer the same
measure to a sample twice and then compare the scores.
Aspects of Reliability
• Internal Consistency
It involves summing item scores are almost always evaluated for their internal consistency.
Ideally, scales are composed of items that all measure the one unitary attribute and nothing else.
An instrument may be said to be internally consistent to the extent that its items measure the
same trait
For Example: on a scale to measure nurses’ empathy, it would be inappropriate to include an
item that measures diagnostic competence.
Internal
Consistency
Internal consistency reliability is the most widely used
reliability approach among nurse researchers.

This approach is the best means of assessing an especially

important source of measurement error in psychosocial
instruments, the sampling of items.

Internal consistency is usually evaluated by calculating

coefficient alpha (or Cronbach’s alpha). The normal range of
values for coefficient alpha is between .00 and 1.00.

The higher the reliability coefficient, the more accurate

(internally consistent) the measure.
 Equivalence

Equivalence, in the context of reliability

Aspects of assessment, primarily concerns the degree to
which two or more independent observers or
Reliability coders agree about the scoring on an
instrument.

With a high level of agreement, the

assumption is that measurement errors have
been minimized.
 The degree of error can be assessed through
interrater (or interobserver) reliability procedures,
which involve having two or more trained observers
or coders make simultaneous, independent
observations.

Equivalence

An index of equivalence or agreement is then

calculated with these data to evaluate the strength of
the relationship between the ratings. When two
independent observers score some phenomenon
congruently, the scores are likely to be accurate and
reliable.
Content Validity Content validity concerns the degree to
which an instrument has an appropriate
sample of items for the construct being
measured and adequately covers the
construct domain.

Content validity is crucial for tests of

knowledge, where the content validity
question is: “How representative are the
questions on this test of the universe of
questions on this topic?”
Criterion-Related Validity

• It seeks to establish a relationship

between scores on an instrument and
some external criterion
How is it done?

• A validity coefficient is computed by

using a mathematic formula that
correlates scores on the instrument with
scores on the criterion variable
Decision on Validity
The magnitude of the coefficient is an
estimate of the instrument’s validity.

These coefficients (r) range between .00 and

1.00, with higher values indicating greater
criterion-related validity. Coefficients of .70
or higher are desirable.
Uses
• Validation via the criterion-related approach is most often used in
applied or practically oriented research.
• Criterion-related validity is helpful in assisting decision makers by
giving them some assurance that their decisions will be effective, fair,
and, in short, valid.
 It is a key criterion for assessing the
quality of a study, and construct
validity has most often been linked to
Construct measurement issues.
Validity

It is essentially a hypothesis-testing
endeavor, typically linked to a
theoretical perspective about the
construct
Approaches
Construct validation can be approached in
several ways, but it always involves
logical analysis and testing relationships
predicted on the basis of firmly grounded
conceptualizations

One approach to construct validation is

the known-groups technique. In this
procedure, groups that are expected to
differ on the target attribute are
administered the instrument, and group
scores are compared.
Approaches

• Another method involves examining

relationships based on theoretical
predictions
 Another approach to construct validation
employs a statistical procedure known as
factor analysis, which is a method for
identifying clusters of related items on a
scale.

Approches The procedure is used to identify and group

together different measures of some
underlying attribute and to distinguish them
from measures of different attributes
Questions?

Thank you!