Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 25
Reliability
LAYBA MARYAM HIRA NADEEM PSYCHOMETRICS
• Psychometrics is the construction and validation of
measurement instruments and assessing if these instruments are reliable and valid forms of measurement. In behavioral medicine, psychometrics is usually concerned with measuring individual’s knowledge, ability, personality, and types of behaviors. • Measurement usually takes place in the form of a questionnaire, and questionnaires must be evaluated extensively before being able to state that they have excellent psychometric properties, meaning a scale is both reliable and valid. • Psychometric properties can be applied to questionnaires, outcome measures, clinical tools, scales or special tests. For the remainder of the page, the term "tool" will apply to describe all of these categories. • PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES INCLUDES VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY RELIABILITY • Reliability refers to the extent to which a measurement is consistent and free from error. Reliability is often associated with reproducibility or dependability of a measurement. INTRODUCTION • Reliability refers mainly to stability, internal consistency and equivalence of a measure. It is important to highlight that the reliability is not a fixed property of a questionnaire. On the contrary, reliability relies on the function of the instrument, of the population in which it is used, on the circumstances, on the context; that is, the same instrument may not be considered reliable under different conditions.
• Reliability estimates are affected by several aspects of the assessment
environment (raters, sample characteristics, type of instrument, administration method) and by the statistical method used. • Therefore, the results of a research using measurement instruments can only be interpreted when the assessment conditions and the statistical approach are clearly presented TYPES OF RELIABILITY Estimation of Reliability
TEST RETEST METHOD:
The goal of estimating reliability is to determine how much of the variability in test scores is due to errors in measurement and how much is due to variability in true scores. • Four practical strategies have been developed that provide workable methods of estimating test reliability. • 1. Test-retest reliability method: directly assesses the degree to which test scores are consistent from one test administration to the next. • It involves: • Administering a test to a group of individuals • Re-administering the same test to the same group at some later time • Correlating the first set of scores with the second • The correlation between scores on the first test and the scores on the retest is used to estimate the reliability of the test using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient PARALLEL FORMS METHOD The key to this method is the development of alternate test forms that are equivalent in terms of content, response processes and statistical characteristics. For example, alternate forms exist for several tests of general intelligence, and these tests are generally seen equivalent. • With the parallel test model it is possible to develop two forms of a test that are equivalent in the sense that a person's true score on form A would be identical to their true score on form B. If both forms of the test were administered to a number of people, differences between scores on form A and form B may be due to errors in measurement only. • It involves: • Administering one form of the test to a group of individuals • At some later time, administering an alternate form of the same test to the same group of people • Correlating scores on form A with scores on form B • The correlation between scores on the two alternate forms is used to estimate the reliability of the test. • This method provides a partial solution to many of the problems inherent in the test-retest reliability method. For example, since the two forms of the test are different, carryover effect is less of a problem. Reactivity effects are also partially controlled; although taking the first test may change responses to the second test. However, it is reasonable to assume that the effect will not be as strong with alternate forms of the test as with two administrations of the same test. DISADVANTAGES OF PARALLEL FORMS
However, this technique has its disadvantages:
- It may be very difficult to create several alternate forms of a test - It may also be difficult if not impossible to guarantee that two alternate forms of a test are parallel measures SPLIT HALF METHOD • This method treats the two halves of a measure as alternate forms. It provides a simple solution to the problem that the parallel-forms method faces: the difficulty in developing alternate forms. It involves: • Administering a test to a group of individuals • Splitting the test in half • Correlating scores on one half of the test with scores on the other half of the test • The correlation between these two split halves is used in estimating the reliability of the test. This halves reliability estimate is then stepped up to the full test length using the Spearman–Brown prediction formula. • There are several ways of splitting a test to estimate reliability. For example, a 40-item vocabulary test could be split into two subtests, the first one made up of items 1 through 20 and the second made up of items 21 through 40. However, the responses from the first half may be systematically different from responses in the second half due to an increase in item difficulty and fatigue. • In splitting a test, the two halves would need to be as similar as possible, both in terms of their content and in terms of the probable state of the respondent. The simplest method is to adopt an odd-even split, in which the odd-numbered items form one half of the test and the even-numbered items form the other. This arrangement guarantees that each half will contain an equal number of items from the beginning, middle, and end of the original test