Aroian K J, Schappler-Morris N
Boston College School of Nursing, USA.
J Nurs Meas. 1996 Summer;4(1):59-74.
This paper describes efforts to develop a method of using qualitative interview data for investigating the construct validity of standardized measures. Illustration is provided through a multimethod validation study that examined the concurrence between observer assessments of interview data and a standardized paper and pencil measure-the Demands of Immigration Scale (DI). Specific aims of the multimethod validation study included (1) determining interrater reliability of the Demands of Immigration Observer Rating Scale (DI-ORS), which assessed respondents according to the interview data they provided and (2) establishing concurrence between observer assessments on the DI-ORS and the respondents' self-ratings on the DI scale. Interrater reliability of the DI-ORS was achieved with 97.9% agreement. However, there were significant differences (p < or = .05, 2-tailed) or disagreement on 5 out of 6 possible occurrences for agreement or disagreement between observer ratings on the DI-ORS and respondents' self ratings on the DI scale. The findings are informative for researchers who wish to use qualitative methods for construct validation.
本文描述了为开发一种利用定性访谈数据来调查标准化测量工具的结构效度的方法所做的努力。通过一项多方法验证研究进行说明,该研究考察了访谈数据的观察者评估与一种标准化纸笔测量工具——移民需求量表(DI)之间的一致性。多方法验证研究的具体目标包括:(1)确定移民需求观察者评定量表(DI - ORS)的评分者间信度,该量表根据受访者提供的访谈数据对其进行评估;(2)在DI - ORS的观察者评估与受访者在DI量表上的自评之间建立一致性。DI - ORS的评分者间信度达到了97.9%的一致性。然而,在DI - ORS的观察者评分与受访者在DI量表上的自评之间,就6种可能出现的一致或不一致情况中的5种存在显著差异(p≤0.05,双侧)或不一致。这些发现对于希望使用定性方法进行结构效度验证的研究人员具有参考价值。