利用回顾性报告对复原力量表进行系统比较:使用南非数据的实用案例研究

C. V. Van Wijk
{"title":"利用回顾性报告对复原力量表进行系统比较:使用南非数据的实用案例研究","authors":"C. V. Van Wijk","doi":"10.4102/ajopa.v6i0.150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The availability of different scales measuring similar constructs challenges scientists and practitioners when it comes to choosing the most appropriate instrument to use. As a result, systematic comparison frameworks have been developed to guide such decisions. The Consensus-based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) is one example of such a framework to examine the quality of psychometric studies. This article aimed, firstly, to explore the psychometric characteristics of resilience measures used in the South African Navy (SAN), in that context. Secondly, it aimed to illustrate the application of the COSMIN guide for comparing psychometric scales and employing data from the aforementioned resilience measures, as a practical case study. The study drew on both published and unpublished data from seven SAN samples, using eight psychometric scales associated with resilience. It assessed structural validity, construct validity, internal reliability and predictive ability. The outcomes were tabulated, and the COSMIN criteria were applied to each data point. All eight scales provided some degree of evidence of validity. However, it was at times difficult to differentiate between the scales when using the COSMIN guidelines. In such cases, more nuanced criteria were necessary to demonstrate more clearly the differences between the psychometric characteristics of the scales and ease in subsequent decision-making.Contribution: This article illustrated the application of COSMIN guidelines to systematically compare the quality of psychometric study outcomes on local South African data. It further offered evidence of validity for a range of resilience-related measures in a South African context.","PeriodicalId":34043,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":" 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic comparison of resilience scales using retrospective reports: A practical case study using South African data\",\"authors\":\"C. V. Van Wijk\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/ajopa.v6i0.150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The availability of different scales measuring similar constructs challenges scientists and practitioners when it comes to choosing the most appropriate instrument to use. As a result, systematic comparison frameworks have been developed to guide such decisions. The Consensus-based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) is one example of such a framework to examine the quality of psychometric studies. This article aimed, firstly, to explore the psychometric characteristics of resilience measures used in the South African Navy (SAN), in that context. Secondly, it aimed to illustrate the application of the COSMIN guide for comparing psychometric scales and employing data from the aforementioned resilience measures, as a practical case study. The study drew on both published and unpublished data from seven SAN samples, using eight psychometric scales associated with resilience. It assessed structural validity, construct validity, internal reliability and predictive ability. The outcomes were tabulated, and the COSMIN criteria were applied to each data point. All eight scales provided some degree of evidence of validity. However, it was at times difficult to differentiate between the scales when using the COSMIN guidelines. In such cases, more nuanced criteria were necessary to demonstrate more clearly the differences between the psychometric characteristics of the scales and ease in subsequent decision-making.Contribution: This article illustrated the application of COSMIN guidelines to systematically compare the quality of psychometric study outcomes on local South African data. It further offered evidence of validity for a range of resilience-related measures in a South African context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":\" 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/ajopa.v6i0.150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/ajopa.v6i0.150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当科学家和从业人员需要选择最合适的工具时,测量类似结构的不同量表的出现给他们带来了挑战。因此,人们开发了系统比较框架来指导此类决策。基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)就是此类框架的一个例子,用于检查心理测量研究的质量。本文首先旨在探讨南非海军(SAN)在此背景下使用的复原力测量工具的心理测量特征。其次,本文旨在说明如何应用 COSMIN 指南来比较心理测量量表,并将上述复原力测量数据作为实际案例研究。研究利用了七个 SAN 样本的已发表和未发表数据,使用了八个与复原力相关的心理测量量表。研究评估了结构效度、构造效度、内部可靠性和预测能力。对结果进行了列表,并对每个数据点应用了 COSMIN 标准。所有八个量表都提供了一定程度的有效性证据。然而,在使用 COSMIN 准则时,有时很难区分不同的量表。在这种情况下,有必要采用更细致的标准,以更清楚地显示量表心理测量特征之间的差异,并便于后续决策:本文说明了如何应用 COSMIN 准则,系统地比较南非本地数据的心理测量研究成果的质量。文章进一步证明了在南非背景下与抗逆力相关的一系列测量方法的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic comparison of resilience scales using retrospective reports: A practical case study using South African data
The availability of different scales measuring similar constructs challenges scientists and practitioners when it comes to choosing the most appropriate instrument to use. As a result, systematic comparison frameworks have been developed to guide such decisions. The Consensus-based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) is one example of such a framework to examine the quality of psychometric studies. This article aimed, firstly, to explore the psychometric characteristics of resilience measures used in the South African Navy (SAN), in that context. Secondly, it aimed to illustrate the application of the COSMIN guide for comparing psychometric scales and employing data from the aforementioned resilience measures, as a practical case study. The study drew on both published and unpublished data from seven SAN samples, using eight psychometric scales associated with resilience. It assessed structural validity, construct validity, internal reliability and predictive ability. The outcomes were tabulated, and the COSMIN criteria were applied to each data point. All eight scales provided some degree of evidence of validity. However, it was at times difficult to differentiate between the scales when using the COSMIN guidelines. In such cases, more nuanced criteria were necessary to demonstrate more clearly the differences between the psychometric characteristics of the scales and ease in subsequent decision-making.Contribution: This article illustrated the application of COSMIN guidelines to systematically compare the quality of psychometric study outcomes on local South African data. It further offered evidence of validity for a range of resilience-related measures in a South African context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
20 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信