Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts

By L. Davis. 1992

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospects (2018, neutral): “Davis LL. (1992).”
Exploration and Exploitation Strategies, Profit Performance, and the Mediating Role of Strategic Learning: Escaping the Exploitation Trap (2012, unknown): “, 2001) develop theoretical models for strategic learning and establish its underlying dimensions, but they do not empirically measure or test the dimensions constituting the concept. However, the process model of strategic learning proposed by Kuwada (1998) describes strategic learning as a process”
Technical Adequacy of the SWPBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory (2017, background): “80 should be examined for revision (Davis, 1992).”
Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. (2007, methodology): “Experts should be selected with care, using well-defined criteria such as those proposed byGrant andDavis (1997). The focus of the first round would be on the items—discovering which ones needed to be revised or discarded, getting advice about whether additional items are needed to adequately tap th”
ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation (2019, methodology): “S-CVI/UA = (sum of UA scores)/(number of item) Note: The definition and formula were based on the recommendations by Lynn (8), Davis (5), Polit & Beck (6) and Polit et al. (7) www.eduimed.com 53 vi. S-CVI/UA: the average of UA scores across all items, for example the S-CVI/ UA [(1 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + ”
Evidencias sobre la validez de contenido: avances teóricos y métodos para su estimación (2013, background): “…bien a nivel de significación estadística, teniendo que ser el IVC superior a una probabilidad asociada de 0.05 (Lynn, 1986) o bien, como propone Davis (1992), interpretando directamente el índice obtenido y teniendo que ser superior a 0,80 para definir el conjunto de ítems como adecuado.”
The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. (2006, methodology): “Several different labels for the four points along the item-rating continuum have appeared in the literature, but the one that was advocated by Davis (1992) appears to be in frequent use: 1¼ not relevant, 2¼ somewhat relevant, 3¼ quite relevant, 4¼ highly relevant.”
Non-linear relationship between industrial service offering and sales growth: The moderating role of network capabilities (2013, methodology): “8 (Davis, 1992; Polit et al., 2007).”
The Harmony in Life Scale Complements the Satisfaction with Life Scale: Expanding the Conceptualization of the Cognitive Component of Subjective Well-Being (2016, methodology): “In accord with Davis’ (1992) item relevance check procedure, the items were rated by 5 researchers within psychology.”
Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective (2012, methodology): “Nº 3 experts in test construction/adaptation and judges who are not experts in the measure but are specialized in the construct of interest or knowledgeable of the discipline it forms part of (Davis, 1992).”
Two Quantitative Approaches for Estimating Content Validity (2003, background): “Many nurse researchers promote use of the CVI for estimating quantitative evidence of content validity (Davis, 1992; Lynn, 1986; Summers, 1993; Waltz et al., 1991); however, the CVI utilizes proportion agreement, which has been criticized by investigators and statisticians over the past three decade”