Validity and Reliability
- First Online: 12 October 2010
Cite this chapter
- John R. Rossiter 2
2140 Accesses
2 Citations
The concepts of validity and reliability of measures are defined (and also assessed) differently in C-OAR-SE than in conventional psychometric theory. Acceptance of the new definitions of validity and reliability is essential if you want to apply C-OAR-SE.
Valid: soundly reasoned, logical.Reliable: dependable, safe. ––Collins Dictionary & Thesaurus (2002)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Compact, lightweight edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
- Durable hardcover edition
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Bagozzi RP (1994) Structural equation models in marketing research: basic principles. In: Bagozzi RP (ed) Principles of marketing research. Blackwell, Cambridge, pp 317–385
Google Scholar
Brehm JW (1966) A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press, New York
Brewer MB, Chen Y-R (2007) Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward a conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychol Bull 114(1):133–151
Campbell DT, Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56(2):81–105
Article Google Scholar
Cattell RB, Eber HW, Tastuoka MM (1970) Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign
Collins AM, Quillian MR (1969) Retrieval time from semantic memory. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 8(2):240–247
Cronbach LJ (1946) Response sets and test validity. Educ Psychol Meas 6(4):475–494
Cronbach LJ (1950) Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educ Psychol Meas 10(1):3–31
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297–334
Dean GA, Nias DKB, French CC (1997) Graphology, astrology, and parapsychology In: Nyborg H (ed) The scientific study of human nature. Elsevier, Oxford
Dolnicar S, Grün B (2007) Cross-cultural differences in survey response patterns. Int Mark Rev 24(1):127–143
Fishbein M (1963) An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about the object and attitude toward that object. Human Relat 16(3):233–240
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2010) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press, New York
Fitzsimons GJ, Lehmann DR (2004) Reactance to recommendations: when unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Mark Sci 23(1):82–94
Follman J (1984) Cornucopia of correlations. Am Psychol 40(6):701–702
Hong S-M, Faedda S (1996) Refinement of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educ Psychol Meas 56(1):173–182
Meyer GJ, Finn SE, Eyde L, Kay GG, Moreland KL, Dies RR, Eisman EJ, Kubiszyn TW, Reed GM (2001) Wanted: research on applied clinical judgment in personality assessment. J Pers Assess 86(2):226–227
Mosteller F, Youtz C (1990) Quantifying probabilistic expressions. Stat Sci 5(1):2–34
Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84(2):231–259
Rossiter JR (1977) Reliability of a short test measuring children’s attitudes toward TV commercials. J Consum Res 3(4):179–184
Rossiter JR (2002a) The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int J Res Mark 19(4):305–335
Rossiter JR, Bellman S (2005) Marketing communications: theory and applications. Pearson Prentice Hall, Sydney
Rossiter JR, Bergkvist L (2009) The importance of choosing one good item for single-item measures of attitude towards the ad and attitude towards the brand and its generalization to all measures. <jtl>Transf Werbeforschung Praxis 55(2):8–18
Rossiter JR, Percy L (1987) Advertising and promotional management. McGraw-Hill, New York
Rossiter JR, Percy L (1997) Advertising communications and promotion management. McGraw-Hill, New York
Viswanathan M, Sudman S, Johnson M (2004) Maximum versus meaningful discrimination in scale response: implications for validity of measurement of consumer perceptions about products. J Bus Res 57(2):108–125
West SG, Duan N, Pequegnat W, Galst P, Des Jarlai Holtgrave D, Szapocznik J, Fishbein M, Rapkin B, Clatts M, Mullen PD (2008) Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health 98(8):1359–1366
Wilson TD (2009) Know thyself. Perspect Psychol Sci 4(4):384–389
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Institute for Innovation in Business and Social Research, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia
John R. Rossiter
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to John R. Rossiter .
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Rossiter, J.R. (2011). Validity and Reliability. In: Measurement for the Social Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7158-6_2
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7158-6_2
Published : 12 October 2010
Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN : 978-1-4419-7157-9
Online ISBN : 978-1-4419-7158-6
eBook Packages : Business and Economics Business and Management (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
Reliability vs. Validity in Research | Difference, Types and Examples
Published on July 3, 2019 by Fiona Middleton . Revised on June 22, 2023.
Reliability and validity are concepts used to evaluate the quality of research. They indicate how well a method , technique. or test measures something. Reliability is about the consistency of a measure, and validity is about the accuracy of a measure.opt
It’s important to consider reliability and validity when you are creating your research design , planning your methods, and writing up your results, especially in quantitative research . Failing to do so can lead to several types of research bias and seriously affect your work.
| Reliability | Validity | |
|---|---|---|
| What does it tell you? | The extent to which the results can be reproduced when the research is repeated under the same conditions. | The extent to which the results really measure what they are supposed to measure. |
| How is it assessed? | By checking the consistency of results across time, across different observers, and across parts of the test itself. | By checking how well the results correspond to established theories and other measures of the same concept. |
| How do they relate? | A reliable measurement is not always valid: the results might be , but they’re not necessarily correct. | A valid measurement is generally reliable: if a test produces accurate results, they should be reproducible. |
Table of contents
Understanding reliability vs validity, how are reliability and validity assessed, how to ensure validity and reliability in your research, where to write about reliability and validity in a thesis, other interesting articles.
Reliability and validity are closely related, but they mean different things. A measurement can be reliable without being valid. However, if a measurement is valid, it is usually also reliable.
What is reliability?
Reliability refers to how consistently a method measures something. If the same result can be consistently achieved by using the same methods under the same circumstances, the measurement is considered reliable.
What is validity?
Validity refers to how accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure. If research has high validity, that means it produces results that correspond to real properties, characteristics, and variations in the physical or social world.
High reliability is one indicator that a measurement is valid. If a method is not reliable, it probably isn’t valid.
If the thermometer shows different temperatures each time, even though you have carefully controlled conditions to ensure the sample’s temperature stays the same, the thermometer is probably malfunctioning, and therefore its measurements are not valid.
However, reliability on its own is not enough to ensure validity. Even if a test is reliable, it may not accurately reflect the real situation.
Validity is harder to assess than reliability, but it is even more important. To obtain useful results, the methods you use to collect data must be valid: the research must be measuring what it claims to measure. This ensures that your discussion of the data and the conclusions you draw are also valid.
Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services
Discover proofreading & editing
Reliability can be estimated by comparing different versions of the same measurement. Validity is harder to assess, but it can be estimated by comparing the results to other relevant data or theory. Methods of estimating reliability and validity are usually split up into different types.
Types of reliability
Different types of reliability can be estimated through various statistical methods.
| Type of reliability | What does it assess? | Example |
|---|---|---|
| The consistency of a measure : do you get the same results when you repeat the measurement? | A group of participants complete a designed to measure personality traits. If they repeat the questionnaire days, weeks or months apart and give the same answers, this indicates high test-retest reliability. | |
| The consistency of a measure : do you get the same results when different people conduct the same measurement? | Based on an assessment criteria checklist, five examiners submit substantially different results for the same student project. This indicates that the assessment checklist has low inter-rater reliability (for example, because the criteria are too subjective). | |
| The consistency of : do you get the same results from different parts of a test that are designed to measure the same thing? | You design a questionnaire to measure self-esteem. If you randomly split the results into two halves, there should be a between the two sets of results. If the two results are very different, this indicates low internal consistency. |
Types of validity
The validity of a measurement can be estimated based on three main types of evidence. Each type can be evaluated through expert judgement or statistical methods.
| Type of validity | What does it assess? | Example |
|---|---|---|
| The adherence of a measure to of the concept being measured. | A self-esteem questionnaire could be assessed by measuring other traits known or assumed to be related to the concept of self-esteem (such as social skills and ). Strong correlation between the scores for self-esteem and associated traits would indicate high construct validity. | |
| The extent to which the measurement of the concept being measured. | A test that aims to measure a class of students’ level of Spanish contains reading, writing and speaking components, but no listening component. Experts agree that listening comprehension is an essential aspect of language ability, so the test lacks content validity for measuring the overall level of ability in Spanish. | |
| The extent to which the result of a measure corresponds to of the same concept. | A is conducted to measure the political opinions of voters in a region. If the results accurately predict the later outcome of an election in that region, this indicates that the survey has high criterion validity. |
To assess the validity of a cause-and-effect relationship, you also need to consider internal validity (the design of the experiment ) and external validity (the generalizability of the results).
The reliability and validity of your results depends on creating a strong research design , choosing appropriate methods and samples, and conducting the research carefully and consistently.
Ensuring validity
If you use scores or ratings to measure variations in something (such as psychological traits, levels of ability or physical properties), it’s important that your results reflect the real variations as accurately as possible. Validity should be considered in the very earliest stages of your research, when you decide how you will collect your data.
- Choose appropriate methods of measurement
Ensure that your method and measurement technique are high quality and targeted to measure exactly what you want to know. They should be thoroughly researched and based on existing knowledge.
For example, to collect data on a personality trait, you could use a standardized questionnaire that is considered reliable and valid. If you develop your own questionnaire, it should be based on established theory or findings of previous studies, and the questions should be carefully and precisely worded.
- Use appropriate sampling methods to select your subjects
To produce valid and generalizable results, clearly define the population you are researching (e.g., people from a specific age range, geographical location, or profession). Ensure that you have enough participants and that they are representative of the population. Failing to do so can lead to sampling bias and selection bias .
Ensuring reliability
Reliability should be considered throughout the data collection process. When you use a tool or technique to collect data, it’s important that the results are precise, stable, and reproducible .
- Apply your methods consistently
Plan your method carefully to make sure you carry out the same steps in the same way for each measurement. This is especially important if multiple researchers are involved.
For example, if you are conducting interviews or observations , clearly define how specific behaviors or responses will be counted, and make sure questions are phrased the same way each time. Failing to do so can lead to errors such as omitted variable bias or information bias .
- Standardize the conditions of your research
When you collect your data, keep the circumstances as consistent as possible to reduce the influence of external factors that might create variation in the results.
For example, in an experimental setup, make sure all participants are given the same information and tested under the same conditions, preferably in a properly randomized setting. Failing to do so can lead to a placebo effect , Hawthorne effect , or other demand characteristics . If participants can guess the aims or objectives of a study, they may attempt to act in more socially desirable ways.
It’s appropriate to discuss reliability and validity in various sections of your thesis or dissertation or research paper . Showing that you have taken them into account in planning your research and interpreting the results makes your work more credible and trustworthy.
| Section | Discuss |
|---|---|
| What have other researchers done to devise and improve methods that are reliable and valid? | |
| How did you plan your research to ensure reliability and validity of the measures used? This includes the chosen sample set and size, sample preparation, external conditions and measuring techniques. | |
| If you calculate reliability and validity, state these values alongside your main results. | |
| This is the moment to talk about how reliable and valid your results actually were. Were they consistent, and did they reflect true values? If not, why not? | |
| If reliability and validity were a big problem for your findings, it might be helpful to mention this here. |
Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting
Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:
- Academic style
- Vague sentences
- Style consistency
See an example
If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Normal distribution
- Degrees of freedom
- Null hypothesis
- Discourse analysis
- Control groups
- Mixed methods research
- Non-probability sampling
- Quantitative research
- Ecological validity
Research bias
- Rosenthal effect
- Implicit bias
- Cognitive bias
- Selection bias
- Negativity bias
- Status quo bias
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
Middleton, F. (2023, June 22). Reliability vs. Validity in Research | Difference, Types and Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/
Is this article helpful?
Fiona Middleton
Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition, uses & methods, data collection | definition, methods & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
Information
- Author Services
Initiatives
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
- Active Journals
- Find a Journal
- Journal Proposal
- Proceedings Series
- For Authors
- For Reviewers
- For Editors
- For Librarians
- For Publishers
- For Societies
- For Conference Organizers
- Open Access Policy
- Institutional Open Access Program
- Special Issues Guidelines
- Editorial Process
- Research and Publication Ethics
- Article Processing Charges
- Testimonials
- Preprints.org
- SciProfiles
- Encyclopedia
Article Menu
_MD__MPH_PhD.png "validity in research methodology pdf")
- Subscribe SciFeed
- Recommended Articles
- Google Scholar
- on Google Scholar
- Table of Contents
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
JSmol Viewer
Cross-cultural adaptation and pilot psychometric validation of the european organisation for research and treatment of cancer—quality of life questionnaire—sexual health (eortc qlq-sh22) scale, moroccan arabic version.
1. Introduction
2. materials and methods, 2.1. process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation, 2.2. psychometric validation, 2.2.1. population and study design, 2.2.2. data collection instruments and measurements.
- Sociodemographic and clinical data
- Collection instrument
2.2.3. Sampling Procedure and Data Collection Process
2.2.4. statistical analysis, 3.1. sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the participants, 3.2. translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the qlq-sh22 scale, 3.3. acceptability, 3.4. reliability, 3.5. validity.
- Construct validity
- Concurrent validity
- Clinical validity
4. Discussion
5. strengths and limitations of the study, 6. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.
- Hordern, A. Intimacy and Sexuality After Cancer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Cancer Nurs. 2008 , 31 , E9–E17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Nuytten, M.; Faugeras, L.; D’Hondt, L. Cancer et Sexualité. Louvain Med. 2018 , 137 , 421–426. [ Google Scholar ]
- Schweizer, A.; Toffel, K.; Braizaz, M. L’abord de La Sexualité Par Les Professionnel·le·s de Santé En Oncologie: Une Revue de La Littérature. Psychol. Fr. 2021 , 66 , 413–428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- INCa. «La vie deux ans après un Diagnostic de cancer—De L’annonce à l’après Cancer », Collection Études et Enquêtes ; INCa: Hialeah, FL, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
- Dahbi, Z.; Sbai, A.; Mezouar, L. Sexuality of Moroccan Survivors of Cervical Cancer: A Prospective Data. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. APJCP 2018 , 19 , 3077–3079. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Ismaili, R.; Nejmeddine, A.; Mimouni, H.; El Haouachim, I.; Hilali, A.; Rahou, B.; Bekkali, R.; Loukili, L. The Impact of Sexual Life Determinants on the Quality of Life of Moroccan Breast and Lung Cancer Survivors Two Years after Diagnosis. Univers. J. Public Health 2022 , 10 , 43–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Bondil, P.; Habold, D. Développement de l’oncosexualité et de l’oncofertilité en France: Pourquoi maintenant ? Aspects culturels et psychosociologiques. Psycho-Oncologie 2015 , 9 , 230–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Roy, V. Le rôle Atténuateur du Soutien Social Dans l’effet du Stress sur le Fonctionnement Immunitaire et les Infections chez des Femmes Traitées en Chimiothérapie Pour un Cancer du sein. 2021. Available online: https://corpus.ulaval.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/ce5ade0c-19fc-42c2-8bce-34b4eb69afca/content (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Bondil, P.; Habold, D.; Carnicelli, D. Cancer et Sexualité: Le Couple, Un Déterminant Trop Souvent Négligé. Sexologies 2016 , 25 , 61–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Moreau, É.; Moulin, P.; Giami, A. L’évolution des liens entre cancer et sexualité: Revue critique de la littérature. Psycho-Oncologie 2016 , 10 , 91–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Mardani, A.; Farahani, M.A.; Khachian, A.; Maleki, M.; Vaismoradi, M. Qualitative Exploration of Sexual Dysfunction and Associated Coping Strategies among Iranian Prostate Cancer Survivors. Support. Care Cancer 2024 , 32 , 360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- World Health Organization. Report of Technical Consultation on Sexual Health 28–31 January 2002 ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
- Schover, L.R.; Van Der Kaaij, M.; Van Dorst, E.; Creutzberg, C.; Huyghe, E.; Kiserud, C.E. Sexual Dysfunction and Infertility as Late Effects of Cancer Treatment. Eur. J. Cancer Suppl. 2014 , 12 , 41–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Greimel, E.; Nagele, E.; Lanceley, A.; Oberguggenberger, A.S.; Nordin, A.; Kuljanic, K.; Arraras, J.I.; Wei-Chu, C.; Jensen, P.T.; Tomaszewski, K.A.; et al. Psychometric Validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Quality of Life Questionnaire Sexual Health (EORTC QLQ-SH22). Eur. J. Cancer 2021 , 154 , 235–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Oberguggenberger, A.S.; Nagele, E.; Inwald, E.C.; Tomaszewski, K.; Lanceley, A.; Nordin, A.; Creutzberg, C.L.; Kuljanic, K.; Kardamakis, D.; Schmalz, C.; et al. Phase 1-3 of the Cross-Cultural Development of an EORTC Questionnaire for the Assessment of Sexual Health in Cancer Patients: The EORTC SHQ-22. Cancer Med. 2018 , 7 , 635–645. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Chatar-Moumni, N. Vers une standardisation de l’arabe marocain? Echo Études Romanes 2015 . Available online: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01739218 (accessed on 4 August 2024).
- Kuliś, D.; Bottomley, A.; Velikova, G.; Greimel, E.; Koller, M. EORTC Quality of Life Group Translation Procedure , 4th ed. 2017. Available online: https://qol.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/translation_manual_2017.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2023).
- Beaton, D.E.; Bombardier, C.; Guillemin, F.; Ferraz, M.B. Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine 2000 , 25 , 3186–3191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Guillemin, F.; Bombardier, C.; Beaton, D. Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Health-Related Quality of Life Measures: Literature Review and Proposed Guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1993 , 46 , 1417–1432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Mokkink, L.B.; de Vet, H.C.W.; Prinsen, C.A.C.; Patrick, D.L.; Alonso, J.; Bouter, L.M.; Terwee, C.B. COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist for Systematic Reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual. Life Res. 2018 , 27 , 1171–1179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Coste, J.; Fermanian, J.; Venot, A. Methodological and Statistical Problems in the Construction of Composite Measurement Scales: A Survey of Six Medical and Epidemiological Journals. Stat. Med. 1995 , 14 , 331–345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Fermanian, J. Evaluating correctly the validity of a rating scale: The numerous pitfalls to avoid. Rev. Epidemiol. Sante Publique 1996 , 44 , 278–286. [ Google Scholar ]
- Fayers, P.M.; Machin, D. Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis, and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes , 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-118-75901-1. [ Google Scholar ]
- Maaroufi, Y. Etude sur les Classes Moyennes au Maroc. Available online: https://www.hcp.ma/Etude-sur-les-classes-moyennes-au-Maroc_a780.html (accessed on 15 May 2021).
- Maaroufi, Y. Pauvreté et Prospérité Partagée au Maroc du Troisième Millénaire, 2001–2014. Available online: https://www.hcp.ma/Pauvrete-et-prosperite-partagee-au-Maroc-du-troisieme-millenaire-2001-2014_a2055.html (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- Oken, M.M.; Creech, R.H.; Tormey, D.C.; Horton, J.; Davis, T.E.; McFadden, E.T.; Carbone, P.P. Toxicity and Response Criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 1982 , 5 , 649–655. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Aaronson, N.K.; Ahmedzai, S.; Bergman, B.; Bullinger, M.; Cull, A.; Duez, N.J.; Filiberti, A.; Flechtner, H.; Fleishman, S.B.; de Haes, J.C.J.M.; et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in Oncology. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993 , 85 , 365–376. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Fayers, P.M.; Aaronson, N.; Bjordal, K.; Groenvold, M.; Curran, D.; Bottomley, A. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual: This Manual Is Intended to Assist Users with Scoring Procedures for the QLQ-C30 Version 3 and Earlier, and the QLQ Supplementary Modules , 3rd ed.; EORTC: Brussels, Belgium, 2001; ISBN 978-2-930064-22-2. [ Google Scholar ]
- Nejjari, C.; El Fakir, S.; Bendahhou, K.; El Rhazi, K.; Abda, N.; Zidouh, A.; Benider, A.; Errihani, H.; Bekkali, R. Translation and Validation of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire -C30 into Moroccan Version for Cancer Patients in Morocco. BMC Res. Notes 2014 , 7 , 228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Streiner, D.L.; Norman, G.R.; Cairney, J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; ISBN 978-0-19-968521-9. [ Google Scholar ]
- Cattell, R. The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences ; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4684-2262-7. [ Google Scholar ]
- Guadagnoli, E.; Velicer, W.F. Relation of Sample Size to the Stability of Component Patterns. Psychol. Bull. 1988 , 103 , 265–275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
- Jackson, D.L. Revisiting Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates: Some Support for the N:Q Hypothesis. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2003 , 10 , 128–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 1951 , 16 , 297–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Feißt, M.; Hennigs, A.; Heil, J.; Moosbrugger, H.; Kelava, A.; Stolpner, I.; Kieser, M.; Rauch, G. Refining Scores Based on Patient Reported Outcomes—Statistical and Medical Perspectives. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019 , 19 , 167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- McDonald, R.P. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment ; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 1-135-67531-7. [ Google Scholar ]
- Guttman, L. Some Necessary Conditions for Common-Factor Analysis. Psychometrika 1954 , 19 , 149–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S.; Ullman, J.B. Using Multivariate Statistics ; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2013; Volume 6. [ Google Scholar ]
- Hair, J.F.; Babin, B.J.; Krey, N. Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and Recommendations. J. Advert. 2017 , 46 , 163–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999 , 6 , 1–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Schreiber, J.B. Core Reporting Practices in Structural Equation Modeling. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2008 , 4 , 83–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- The Jamovi Project. Jamovi. (Version 2.5) [Computer Software]. 2024. Available online: https://www.Jamovi.Org (accessed on 22 May 2024).
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (Version 4.3) [Computer Software]. (R Packages Retrieved from CRAN Snapshot 2024-01-09). 2023. Available online: https://Cran.r-Project.Org (accessed on 31 January 2023).
- Gallucci, M.; Jentschke, S. SEMLj: Jamovi SEM Analysis. [Jamovi Module]. 2021. Available online: https://Semlj.Github.Io/ (accessed on 22 May 2024).
- Epskamp, S.; Stuber, S.; Nak, J.; Veenman, M.; Jorgensen, T.D. semPlot: Path Diagrams and Visual Analysis of Various SEM Packages’ Output 2022. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semPlot (accessed on 22 May 2024).
- Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016 , 15 , 155–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Costello, A.; Osborne, J. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2019 , 10 , 7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
- Berger, J.-L. Analyse Factorielle Exploratoire et Analyse En Composantes Principales: Guide Pratique 2021. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-03436771/document (accessed on 30 January 2024).
Click here to enlarge figure
| Characteristic | No. of Patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 52.34 ± 10.54 (range: 26–82) |
| <50 years old | 132 (47.1) |
| ≥50 years old | 148 (52.9) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 188 (67.1) |
| Male | 92 (32.9) |
| Socioeconomic status | |
| Low | 199 (71.1) |
| Middle | 74 (26.4) |
| High | 7 (2.5) |
| Educational status | |
| Unschooled | 186 (66.4) |
| Primary | 48 (17.1) |
| Secondary | 43 (15.4) |
| Higher | 3 (1.1) |
| Occupation status | |
| Active | 21 (7.5) |
| Inactive | 188 (67.1) |
| Retired | 10 (3.6) |
| Loss of work | 61 (21.8) |
| Prevenance | |
| Rural | 127 (45.4) |
| Urban | 153 (54.6) |
| Characteristic | No. of Patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Tumor site | |
| Breast | 151 (53.9) |
| Gynecologic | 22 (7.9) |
| Prostate | 6 (2.1) |
| Other genitourinary | 6 (2.1) |
| Head and neck | 8 (2.9) |
| Colorectal | 17 (6.1) |
| Lung | 22 (7.9) |
| Digestive | 13 (4.6) |
| Lymphoma and blood | 28 (10.0) |
| Other (liver, thyroid, etc.) | 7 (2.5) |
| Treatment | |
| Curative | 180 (64.3) |
| Palliative | 100 (35.7) |
| Status of disease | |
| NED | 43 (15.4) |
| Newly diagnosed | 192 (68.6) |
| Recurrence/progression | 45 (16) |
| Comorbidity | |
| No | 199 (71.1) |
| Yes | 81 (28.9) |
| ECOG | |
| Fully active | 31 (11.1) |
| Restricted | 98 (35.0) |
| Self-care possible | 105 (37.5) |
| Limited self-care | 46 (16.4) |
| Surgery | |
| No | 92 (32.9) |
| Yes | 188 (67.1) |
| Scale | Items | Mean | SD | Median | Interquartile | Cronbach’s Alpha α | McDonald’s Omega ω | Test–Retest ICC (n = 40) | Valid n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-item scales | |||||||||
| Sexual satisfaction | 8 | 2.78 | 0.53 | 2.80 | (2.5; 3.13) | 0.828 | 0.844 | 0.984(0.970; 0.991) | 280 |
| Sexual pain | 3 | 2.22 | 0.83 | 2.00 | (1.67; 2.67) | 0.862 | 0.864 | 0.993(0.986; 0.996) | 280 |
| Single-item scales | |||||||||
| Importance of sexual activity | 1 | 2.18 | 0.97 | 2.00 | (1.00; 3.00) | 0.942(0.890; 0.969) | 280 | ||
| Decreased libido | 1 | 3.10 | 0.86 | 3.00 | (2.00; 4.00) | 0.988(0.978; 0.994) | 280 | ||
| Worry incontinence | 1 | 1.35 | 0.59 | 1.00 | (1.00; 2.00) | 0.988(0.977; 0.993) | 280 | ||
| Fatigue | 1 | 3.32 | 0.84 | 4.00 | (3.00; 4.00) | 0.936(0.880; 0.966) | 280 | ||
| Treatment effect on sexual activity | 1 | 3.27 | 0.81 | 3.00 | (3.00; 4.00) | 0.960(0.924; 0.979) | 280 | ||
| Communication with professionals | 1 | 3.82 | 0.47 | 4.00 | (4.00; 4.00) | 0.966(0.936; 0.982) | 280 | ||
| Insecurity with the partner | 1 | 2.65 | 0.84 | 3.00 | (2.00; 3.00) | 0.969(0.942; 0.984) | 280 | ||
| Erectile dysfunction | 1 | 2.48 | 0.72 | 2.00 | (2.00; 3.00) | 0.972(0.939; 0.987) | 92 | ||
| Body image (male) | 1 | 2.96 | 0.96 | 3.00 | (2.00; 4.00) | 0.981(0.959; 0.991) | 92 | ||
| Body image (female) | 1 | 2.78 | 0.92 | 3.00 | (2.00; 3.00) | 0.968(0.900; 0.990) | 188 | ||
| Vaginal dryness | 1 | 2.47 | 0.86 | 3.00 | (2.00; 3.00) | 0.925(0.717; 0.980) | 101 |
| Component | KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) |
|---|---|
| Item 3: Have you been satisfied with your level of sexual desire? | 0.60 |
| Item 4: Has sexual activity been enjoyable for you? | 0.67 |
| Item 10: Have you been satisfied with your ability to reach an orgasm? | 0.83 |
| Item 12: Have you been satisfied with the communication about sexual issues between yourself and your partner? | 0.91 |
| Item 17: Have you been satisfied with your level of intimacy? | 0.89 |
| Item 18: Have you been sexually active? | 0.86 |
| Item 19: To what extend did you feel sexual enjoyment? | 0.83 |
| Item 21: Have you been satisfied with your sex life? | 0.86 |
| Item 8: Have you felt pain during/after sexual activity? | 0.76 |
| Item 11: Have you been worried that sex would be painful? | 0.73 |
| Item 20: Have you been worried that your partner may cause you pain during sexual contact? | 0.80 |
| KMO overall | 0.80 |
| Indices of Goodness of Fit Statistics | Model |
|---|---|
| Chi-square test/degrees of freedom (χ2/df) | 1.17 |
| Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) | 0.99 |
| Fit Comparative Index (FCI) | 0.99 |
| Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) | 0.94 |
| Incremental Fit Index (IFI) | 0.99 |
| Normalized Fit Index (NFI) | 0.94 |
| Standardized Root Mean Residue (SRMR) | 0.05 |
| Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | 0.035 |
| The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Share and Cite
Mahlaq, S.; Rais, G.; Abouqal, R.; Belayachi, J. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Pilot Psychometric Validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer—Quality of Life Questionnaire—Sexual Health (EORTC QLQ-SH22) Scale, Moroccan Arabic Version. Healthcare 2024 , 12 , 1892. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12181892
Mahlaq S, Rais G, Abouqal R, Belayachi J. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Pilot Psychometric Validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer—Quality of Life Questionnaire—Sexual Health (EORTC QLQ-SH22) Scale, Moroccan Arabic Version. Healthcare . 2024; 12(18):1892. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12181892
Mahlaq, Safiya, Ghizlane Rais, Redouane Abouqal, and Jihane Belayachi. 2024. "Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Pilot Psychometric Validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer—Quality of Life Questionnaire—Sexual Health (EORTC QLQ-SH22) Scale, Moroccan Arabic Version" Healthcare 12, no. 18: 1892. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12181892
Article Metrics
Article access statistics, supplementary material.
ZIP-Document (ZIP, 232 KiB)
Further Information
Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
PDF | The validity and reliability of the scales used in research are important factors that enable the research to yield healthy results. ... regarding the main methods used in the evaluation of ...
Learn how to design and measure quantitative research with excellence and validity from this comprehensive article.
Statistical conclusion validity is an issue whenever statistical tests are used to test hypotheses. The research design can address threats to validity through. considerations of statistical power. alpha reduction procedures (e.g., Bonferoni technique) when multiple tests are used. use of reliable instruments.
Abstract. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the concepts of validity and reliability in academic research and explores methods and strategies to enhance these factors in research ...
since qualitative methods cannot be generalised beyond the sample. For this reason, projects using qualitative methods are more likely to explicitly discuss these issues. Example 3.1 Discussion of reliability and validity from a mixed methods study Reliability and Validity Strategies used to address reliability in this research study
GRE, SAT, etc. are often based on the lack of predictive validity of these tests). 2. Construct Validity Three types of evidence can be obtained for the purpose of construct validity, depending on the research problem. a) Convergent validity. Evidence that the same concept measured in different ways yields similar results.
Abstract. This article examines reliability and validity as ways to demonstrate the rigour and trustworthiness of quantitative and qualitative research. The authors discuss the basic principles of ...
Without rigor, research is worthless, becomes fiction, and loses its utility. Hence, a great deal of attention is applied to reliability and validity in all research methods. Challenges to rigor in qualitative inquiry interestingly paralleled the blossoming of statistical packages and the development of computing systems in quantitative research.
Chapter 2Validity and Reliabilit. Valid: soundly reasoned, l. Reliable: dependable, safe. - Dictionary & Thesaurus (2002)The concepts of validity and reliability of measures are defined (and also assessed) differently in C-OAR-SE than i. conventional psychometric theory. Acceptance of the new definitions of validity and reliabilit. is essen.
Validity, Construct Validity, and Criterion Validity. I. INTRODUCTION Validity explains how well the collected data covers the actual area of investigation (Ghauri and Gronhaug, 2005). Validity basically means "measure what is intended to be measured" (Field, 2005). In this paper, main types of validity namely; face validity, content ...
Validity and reliability in quantitative studies Roberta Heale,1 Alison Twycross2 Evidence-based practice includes, in part, implementa-tion of the findings of well-conducted quality research studies. So being able to critique quantitative research is an important skill for nurses. Consideration must be
The table below shows how the MTMM matrix works. The matrix represents 5 different methods and 5 different behaviours. Convergent validity for Trait 1 is established if Trait 1 (T1) measured by Method 1 (M1) correlates highly with Trait 1 (T1) and Method 2 (M2), resulting in (T1M2) and so on for T1M3, T1M4, and T1M5.
Validity Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. While reliability is concerned with the accuracy of the actual measuring instrument or procedure, validity is concerned with the study's success at
3.1 INTRODUCTION. In Chapter 2, the study's aims of exploring how objects can influence the level of construct validity of a Picture Vocabulary Test were discussed, and a review conducted of the literature on the various factors that play a role as to how the validity level can be influenced. In this chapter validity and reliability are ...
Research Methods, Survey Methods, Validity Abstract: What follows is a practical guide for establishing the validity of a survey for research purposes. The motivation for providing this guide is our observation that researchers, not necessarily being survey researchers per se, but wanting to use a survey method, lack a concise resource on validity.
This unit mainly concerns about various problems that can threaten the reliability and validity of conclusions drawn by the researcher. There are two goals of research design; Obtain information relevant to the purposes of the study. Collect this information with maximal reliability and validity.
PDF | Questionnaire is one of the most widely used tools to collect data in especially social science research. ... of research methodology which are known as validity and reliability. Often new ...
Research methodology provides us the principles for organizing, planning, designing and conducting a good research. Hence, it is the science and philosophy behind all researches [Legesse, 2014]. Research methodology is judged for rigor and strength based on validity, and reliability of a research [Morris & Burkett, 2011]. This study is a review ...
cannot be applied to qualitative research, there are ongoing debates about whether terms such as validity, reliability and generalisability are appropriate to evalu-ate qualitative research.2-4 In the broadest context these terms are applicable, with validity referring to the integ-rity and application of the methods undertaken and the
Construct validity. Construct validity evaluates whether a measurement tool really represents the thing we are interested in measuring. It's central to establishing the overall validity of a method. What is a construct? A construct refers to a concept or characteristic that can't be directly observed, but can be measured by observing other indicators that are associated with it.
The Research Methods Skills Assessment (RMSA) was created to measure psychology majors' statistics knowledge and skills. The American Psychological Association's Guidelines for the Undergraduate Major in Psychology (APA, 2007, 2013) served as a framework for development. Results from a Rasch analysis with data from n=330 undergraduates ...
Validity and reliability or trustworthiness are fundamental issues in scientific research whether. it is qualitative, quantitative, or mixed research. It is a necessity for researchers to describe ...
Reliability is about the consistency of a measure, and validity is about the accuracy of a measure.opt. It's important to consider reliability and validity when you are creating your research design, planning your methods, and writing up your results, especially in quantitative research. Failing to do so can lead to several types of research ...
The validity of the QLQ-SH22 Moroccan Arabic version was assessed using multiple methods, namely construct validity (CFA), concurrent validity, and clinical validity. Our empirical data had indices of sufficient quality (KMO = 0.80, Bartlett test < 0.001), well above the acceptable limit of 0.60 [ 38 ], ensuring the adequacy of the sample for ...