Development of a Short Scale to Measure Sustainable Product Involvement

This study develops a short, general scale to measure sustainable product involvement. This is done in a Costa Rican context, via a relatively large sample, demographically similar to the national population. The study also evaluates the viability of the C-OAR-SE scaling technique for this purpose. A five-item instrument is developed, its reliability and validity psychometrically confirmed. The scale addresses the levels and types of involvement that consumers might have. It suits not only academic researchers, but also practitioners in different areas. We conclude that C-OAR-SE is a viable technique. It complements traditional psychometric methods well so as to be considered by researchers in the different fields of business.

Niche diversity predicts personality structure across 115 nations

The niche diversity hypothesis proposes that personality structure arises from the affordances of unique trait-combinations within a society. Prior tests of the hypothesis in 55 nations suffer from potential confounds associated with differences in the measurement properties of personality scales across groups. Using recently developed psychometric methods for the approximation of cross-national measurement invariance, we test the niche diversity hypothesis in a novel sample of 115 nations (N = 685,089). Niche diversity was robustly related to both inter-factor covariance and personality dimensionality but was not consistently related to intra-factor variance across nations. These findings generally bolster the core of the niche diversity hypothesis, demonstrating the contingency of human personality structure on socioecological contexts.

An Editorial on Tailoring Patient-Reported Outcomes to the Individual Patient: Precision PROs

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have the potential to improve clinical care. One barrier to implementing PROs and maximizing their effectiveness is difficulty individualizing PROs. To address this barrier, we propose a precision PRO methodology. By this approach, patients would first define a minimally important difference for themselves. Patients would then choose which items within a PRO item bank are most important to them; these items would be used to monitor patients’ progress. Patients could be compared to each other – even if they chose different questions – using modern psychometric methods. We propose future research to guide how to determine the simplest and most effective precision PRO methodology.

Psychometric evaluation of patient-reported experience measures: is it valid?

Multiple published studies and reviews have advocated the application of psychometric methods to the validation of patient experience measurement. Some such methods depend on measurement assumptions that may not be appropriate for patient experience. Rather than being the default approach for the validation of patient experience measurement, we argue that psychometric methods should be reviewed critically to determine their fit to the measurement application, and alternative approaches explored, so that the most appropriate validation methods can be identified.

Is It Time to Go Positive? Assessing the Positively Worded System Usability Scale (SUS)

Objective: The goal of the research presented in this paper was to determine if the positively worded System Usability Scale (SUS) can be used in place of the positively and negatively worded standard SUS instrument for the subjective assessment of usability, and whether the results found here replicate those of Sauro and Lewis. Background: Sauro and Lewis’ previous study found no evidence that responses to SUS items differed across the standard SUS and the modified, positively worded version of the SUS when participants assessed websites. This study replicates and extends this work by examining a large number of different systems with larger sample sizes to add to the generalizability of previous findings. Methods: So that participants could retrospectively assess 20 products, the standard SUS was administered to 268 participants and the positive SUS to 698 participants. SUS scores were computed and the data analyzed using psychometric methods to explore how the two versions of the SUS differed. Results: The standard and positive versions of the SUS yielded similar SUS scores. In addition, both versions of the scale demonstrated evidence in support of reliability and validity. Conclusion: Either version of the SUS can be used with confidence to measure subjective usability. Furthermore, the scores generated from both versions of the SUS can be directly compared. Applications: In situations where cognitive load, participants’ spoken language, or item consistency with other surveys being given may be a factor, the positive SUS is a viable alternative to the standard SUS.

The Validity Concept in Medical Education: a Bibliometric Analysis

Introduction: Assessment is a critical part of learning and validity is arguably its most important aspect. However, different views and beliefs led to a fragmented conception of the validity meaning, with an excessive focus on psychometric methods and scores, neglecting the consequences and utility of the test. The last decades witnessed the creation of a significant number of tests to assess different aspects of the medical profession formation, but researchers frequently limit their conclusions to the consistency of their measurements, without any further analysis on the educational and social impacts of the test. The objective of this work is to determine the predominant concept of validity in medical education assessment studies. Method: The authors conducted a bibliometric research of the literature about studies on the assessment of learning of medical students, to determine the prevalent concept of validity. The research covered a period from January 2001 to august 2019. The studies were classified in two categories based on their approach to validity: (1)” fragmented validity concept” and (2)” unified validity concept”. To help with validity arguments, the studies were also classified based on Miller’s framework for clinical assessment. Results: From an initial search resulting in 2823 studies, 716 studies were selected based on the eligibility criteria, and from the selected list, of which 693 (96,7%) were considered studies of the fragmented validity concept, which prioritized score results over an analysis of the test's utility, and only 23 studies (3,2%) were aligned with a unified view of validity, showing an explicit analysis of the consequences and utility of the test. Although the last decade witnessed a significant increase in the number of assessment studies, this increase was not followed by a significant change in the validity concept. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis demonstrated that assessment studies in medical education still have a fragmented concept of validity, restricted to psychometric methods and scores. The vast majority of studies are not committed to the analysis about the utility and educational impact of an assessment policy. This restrictive view can lead to the waste of valuable time and resources related to assessment methods without significant educational consequences.