Sample Compositions and Variabilities in Published Studies Versus Those in Test Manuals: Validity of Score Reliability Inductions

2011 ◽  
pp. 156-172
Author(s):  
Vacha-Haase Tammi ◽  
Kogan Lori R. ◽  
Thompson Bruce
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1053
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Ćwirlej-Sozańska ◽  
Bernard Sozański ◽  
Mateusz Kupczyk ◽  
Justyna Leszczak ◽  
Andrzej Kwolek ◽  
...  

Background: Huntington’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that usually manifests in adulthood and is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. The main aim of the study was to assess the psychometric properties of the 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in studying the level of disability in people with Huntington’s disease. Method: This is a cross-sectional study that covered 128 people with Huntington’s disease living in Poland. We examined scale score reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and known-group validity. The disability and quality of life of people with Huntington’s disease were also assessed. Results: The scale score reliability of the entire tool for the research group was high. The Cronbach’s α test result for the whole scale was 0.97. Cronbach’s α for individual domains ranged from 0.95 to 0.79. Time consistency for the overall result was 0.99 and for particular domains ranged from 0.91 to 0.99, which confirmed that the scale was consistent over time. All of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 domains negatively correlated with all of the Huntington Quality of Life Instrument (H-QoL-I) domains. All correlation coefficients were statistically significant at the level of p < 0.001. The results obtained in the linear regression model showed that with each subsequent point of decrease in BMI the level of disability increases by an average of 0.83 points on the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 scale. With each subsequent year of the disease, the level of disability increases by an average of 1.39 points. Conclusions: This is the first study assessing disability by means of the WHODAS 2.0 in the HD patient population in Poland, and it is also one of the few studies evaluating the validity of the WHODAS 2.0 scale in assessing the disability of people with HD in accordance with the recommendations of DSM-5 (R). We have confirmed that the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 is an effective tool for assessing disability and changes in functioning among people with Huntington’s disease.


2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 336-A5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders D. Moeller ◽  
Rikke R. Thorsen ◽  
Tina P. Torabi ◽  
Anne-Sofie D. Bjoerkman ◽  
Elsebeth H. Christensen ◽  
...  

Haemophilia ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 518-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. HILLIARD ◽  
S. FUNK ◽  
N. ZOURIKIAN ◽  
B.-M. BERGSTROM ◽  
C. S. BRADLEY ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin J. Bergee

Assessment of music performance in authentic contexts remains an underinvestigated area of research. This study is an examination of one such context, the inter-judge reliability of faculty evaluation of end-of-semester applied music performances. Brass (n = 4), percussion (n = 2), woodwind (n = 5), voice (n = 5), piano (n = 3), and string (n = 5) instructors evaluating a recent semester's applied music juries at a large university participated in the study. Each evaluator completed a criterion-specific rating scale for each performer and assigned each performance a global letter grade not shared with other evaluators or with the performer. Interjudge reliability was determined for each group's rating scale total scores, subscale scores, and the letter-grade assessment. All possible permutations of two, three, and four were examined for interjudge reliability, and averaged correlations, standard deviations, and ranges were determined. Full-panel interjudge reliability was consistently good regardless of panel size. All total score reliability coefficients were statistically significant, as were all coefficients for the global letter-grade assessment. All subscale reliabilities for all groups except Percussion (which, with an n of 2, had a stringent significance criterion) were statistically significant, with the exception of the Suitability subscale in Voice. For larger panels (ns of 4 and 5), rating scale total score reliability was consistently but not greatly higher than reliability for the letter-grade assessment. There was no decrease of average reliability as group size incrementally decreased. Permutations of two and three evaluators, however, tended on average to exhibit more variability, greater range, and less uniformity than did groups of four and five. No differences in reliability were noted among levels of experience or between teaching assistants and faculty members. Use of a minimum of five adjudicators for performance evaluation in this context was recommended.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document