scale psychometrics
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

19
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

7
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 135 ◽  
pp. 181-188
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Gift ◽  
Matthew L. Reimherr ◽  
Barrie K. Marchant ◽  
Tammy A. Steans ◽  
Frederick W. Reimherr

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianne E. Weiss ◽  
Stacee M. Lerret ◽  
Kathleen J. Sawin ◽  
Rachel F. Schiffman

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-378
Author(s):  
Helen M. Hendy ◽  
Laura J. Seiverling ◽  
Keith E. Williams ◽  
Debra Mazzeo ◽  
Whitney Harclerode
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Michelle Buchanan ◽  
Riley E. Foreman ◽  
Becca Nicole Huber ◽  
Jeffrey Michael Pavlacic ◽  
Rachel N. Swadley ◽  
...  

Scales that are psychometrically sound, meaning those that meet established standards regarding reliability and validity when measuring one or more constructs of interest, are customarily evaluated based on a set modality (i.e., computer or paper) and administration (fixed-item order). Deviating from an established administration profile could result in non-equivalent response patterns, indicating the possible evaluation of a dissimilar construct. Randomizing item administration may alter or eliminate these effects. Therefore, we examined the differences in scale relationships for randomized and nonrandomized computer delivery for two scales measuring meaning/purpose in life. These scales have questions about suicidality, depression, and life goals that may cause item reactivity (i.e. a changed response to a second item based on the answer to the first item). Results indicated that item randomization does not alter scale psychometrics for meaning in life scales, which implies that results are comparable even if researchers implement different delivery modalities.


2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 310-318.e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura S. Park ◽  
Christie L. Burton ◽  
Annie Dupuis ◽  
Janet Shan ◽  
Eric A. Storch ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 1964-1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica S Gubbels ◽  
Ester FC Sleddens ◽  
Lieke CH Raaijmakers ◽  
Judith M Gies ◽  
Stef PJ Kremers

AbstractObjectiveTo develop and validate a questionnaire to measure food-related and activity-related practices of child-care staff, based on existing, validated parenting practices questionnaires.DesignA selection of items from the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire (CFPQ) and the Preschooler Physical Activity Parenting Practices (PPAPP) questionnaire was made to include items most suitable for the child-care setting. The converted questionnaire was pre-tested among child-care staff during cognitive interviews and pilot-tested among a larger sample of child-care staff. Factor analyses with Varimax rotation and internal consistencies were used to examine the scales. Spearman correlations, t tests and ANOVA were used to examine associations between the scales and staff’s background characteristics (e.g. years of experience, gender).SettingChild-care centres in the Netherlands.SubjectsThe qualitative pre-test included ten child-care staff members. The quantitative pilot test included 178 child-care staff members.ResultsThe new questionnaire, the Child-care Food and Activity Practices Questionnaire (CFAPQ), consists of sixty-three items (forty food-related and twenty-three activity-related items), divided over twelve scales (seven food-related and five activity-related scales). The CFAPQ scales are to a large extent similar to the original CFPQ and PPAPP scales. The CFAPQ scales show sufficient internal consistency with Cronbach’s α ranging between 0·53 and 0·96, and average corrected item–total correlations within acceptable ranges (0·30–0·89). Several of the scales were significantly associated with child-care staff’s background characteristics.ConclusionsScale psychometrics of the CFAPQ indicate it is a valid questionnaire that assesses child-care staff’s practices related to both food and activities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document