Development of an appraisal tool to evaluate strength of an instrument or outcome measure
Intended for healthcare professionals
A&S Science Previous     Next

Development of an appraisal tool to evaluate strength of an instrument or outcome measure

Kat Leung PhD candidate, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Lyndal Trevena Associate professor, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Donna Waters Associate professor and associate dean (research), Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Aim To devise a framework to enable the grading of the psychometric strength of instruments and questionnaires.

Background Clinicians and researchers use a range of instruments and questionnaires to evaluate the outcomes of their research or clinical practice. To date, there has been no quantitative framework designed to determine the validity of these measurement tools.

Review methods The psychometric grading framework (PGF) consists of two scales: scale one is a matrix for assigning a level (A-D) to each of six psychometric properties, based on the strength of any measures reported; scale two grades the overall psychometric strength of the instrument by combining the number and level of psychometric measures arising from the first scale.

Conclusion The PGF uses a simple matrix that combines results from psychometric measures into an overall grading of an instrument’s strength. The flexibility of the framework enables consistent determination of strength across a range of instruments.

Implications for research/practice The PGF provides a preliminary evaluation (or grading) of the psychometric properties of an instrument based on the number and strength of reported psychometric scores. Its use may reduce the subjective judgements about the quality of instruments and outcome measures.

Nurse Researcher. 20, 2, 13-19. doi: 10.7748/nr2012.11.20.2.13.c9436

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Conflict of interest

None declared

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more