A process for assessing the reliability and validity of questions for use in online surveys: Exploring how communication technology is used between Lead Maternity Carer midwives and pregnant people in Aotearoa New Zealand

Q1 Social Sciences
Karen J Wakelin, Judith McAra-Couper, Tania Fleming, Gwen D. Erlam
{"title":"A process for assessing the reliability and validity of questions for use in online surveys: Exploring how communication technology is used between Lead Maternity Carer midwives and pregnant people in Aotearoa New Zealand","authors":"Karen J Wakelin, Judith McAra-Couper, Tania Fleming, Gwen D. Erlam","doi":"10.1177/20597991221148401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is growing use of communication technology in Aotearoa New Zealand. How it is used between midwives and pregnant people is unknown. Surveys are ideal for gathering information when there is little known of a phenomenon. Aligning questions to a midwifery informed framework provides an innovate approach to explore this issue. To assess reliability and validity of questions for two online surveys using a tool created for an expert advisory group of midwives with experience in survey design and midwifery practice. An innovative approach is taken to validate questions for two online surveys using an expert advisory group of seven midwifery academic researchers with experience in both quantitative and qualitative research designs, and midwifery practice. The group were asked to rate items using a 4-point rating scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Analysis of the scoring was undertaken using Content Validity Index, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and review of comments by the group. Quantitative scoring of both survey instruments were valid and reliable. The overall Content Validity Index score was 0.92 (midwives) and 0.93 (pregnant people). The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient score was .78 (midwives) and .83 (pregnant people). Qualitative comments reinforced the validity and reliability of survey questions. An innovative approach was taken in assessing the reliability and validity of two online surveys using a midwifery expert advisory group and a midwifery framework to situate the surveys within a midwifery body of expertise and knowledge. The comments made by midwifery experts provided an extra layer in the validation of survey instruments using Content Validity Index and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient scoring. Creating a tool for validating questions developed by midwives for an expert group of midwives recognises the potential patriarchal roots of knowledge production and dissemination and enables marginalised voices to be heard.","PeriodicalId":32579,"journal":{"name":"Methodological Innovations","volume":"16 1","pages":"91 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodological Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991221148401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There is growing use of communication technology in Aotearoa New Zealand. How it is used between midwives and pregnant people is unknown. Surveys are ideal for gathering information when there is little known of a phenomenon. Aligning questions to a midwifery informed framework provides an innovate approach to explore this issue. To assess reliability and validity of questions for two online surveys using a tool created for an expert advisory group of midwives with experience in survey design and midwifery practice. An innovative approach is taken to validate questions for two online surveys using an expert advisory group of seven midwifery academic researchers with experience in both quantitative and qualitative research designs, and midwifery practice. The group were asked to rate items using a 4-point rating scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Analysis of the scoring was undertaken using Content Validity Index, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and review of comments by the group. Quantitative scoring of both survey instruments were valid and reliable. The overall Content Validity Index score was 0.92 (midwives) and 0.93 (pregnant people). The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient score was .78 (midwives) and .83 (pregnant people). Qualitative comments reinforced the validity and reliability of survey questions. An innovative approach was taken in assessing the reliability and validity of two online surveys using a midwifery expert advisory group and a midwifery framework to situate the surveys within a midwifery body of expertise and knowledge. The comments made by midwifery experts provided an extra layer in the validation of survey instruments using Content Validity Index and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient scoring. Creating a tool for validating questions developed by midwives for an expert group of midwives recognises the potential patriarchal roots of knowledge production and dissemination and enables marginalised voices to be heard.
评估在线调查中使用的问题的可靠性和有效性的过程:探索如何在新西兰Aotearoa的首席产科护理助产士和孕妇之间使用通信技术
在新西兰的奥特亚,通信技术的使用越来越多。它是如何在助产士和孕妇之间使用的还不得而知。当对某一现象知之甚少时,调查是收集信息的理想选择。将问题与助产学知情框架相结合,为探讨这一问题提供了一种创新的方法。使用为具有调查设计和助产实践经验的助产士专家咨询小组创建的工具,评估两项在线调查问题的可靠性和有效性。采用了一种创新的方法来验证两项在线调查的问题,使用了一个由七名在定量和定性研究设计以及助产实践方面都有经验的助产学术研究人员组成的专家咨询小组。该小组被要求使用4分评分表对项目进行评分,评分范围从强烈同意到强烈不同意。使用内容有效性指数、Cronbachα系数和小组评论进行评分分析。两种调查工具的定量评分都是有效和可靠的。内容有效性指数总分为0.92(助产士)和0.93(孕妇)。Cronbachα系数总分为.78(助产士)和0.83(孕妇)。定性评论加强了调查问题的有效性和可靠性。采用了一种创新的方法来评估两项在线调查的可靠性和有效性,使用了一个助产专家咨询小组和一个助产框架,将调查置于一个专业知识和助产机构内。助产专家的评论为使用内容有效性指数和Cronbachα系数评分验证调查工具提供了额外的一层。为助产士专家组创建一个验证助产士提出的问题的工具,认识到知识生产和传播的潜在父权根源,并使边缘化的声音能够被听到。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methodological Innovations
Methodological Innovations Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书