Polit Denise F, Beck Cheryl Tatano, Owen Steven V
Humanalysis, Inc., 75 Clinton Street, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA.
Res Nurs Health. 2007 Aug;30(4):459-67. doi: 10.1002/nur.20199.
Nurse researchers typically provide evidence of content validity for instruments by computing a content validity index (CVI), based on experts' ratings of item relevance. We compared the CVI to alternative indexes and concluded that the widely-used CVI has advantages with regard to ease of computation, understandability, focus on agreement of relevance rather than agreement per se, focus on consensus rather than consistency, and provision of both item and scale information. One weakness is its failure to adjust for chance agreement. We solved this by translating item-level CVIs (I-CVIs) into values of a modified kappa statistic. Our translation suggests that items with an I-CVI of .78 or higher for three or more experts could be considered evidence of good content validity.
护士研究人员通常通过计算内容效度指数（CVI）来提供工具的内容效度证据，该指数基于专家对项目相关性的评分。我们将CVI与其他指数进行了比较，得出结论：广泛使用的CVI在计算简便性、可理解性、关注相关性的一致性而非一致性本身、关注共识而非一致性以及提供项目和量表信息方面具有优势。一个缺点是它没有对机遇一致性进行调整。我们通过将项目层面的CVI（I-CVI）转换为修正的kappa统计量的值来解决这个问题。我们的转换表明，对于三位或更多专家而言，I-CVI为0.78或更高的项目可被视为良好内容效度的证据。
