Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, 3rd ed

By L. Rajmil. 2005

2,281 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/accc72a132515993f5446912727d6d475c8c1f2e

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

Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. (2011, background): “60 is generally the minimum acceptable coefficient to determine good agreement [24].”
Composite Variables (2013, methodology): “To enhance interpretation, some researchers transform the composite to a standardized scoreVfor example, a T score: T ¼ X0; þ C ðSD0 Þ, where X0 ; is a new desired mean (e.g., 50) and SD¶ is a desired standard deviation (e.g., 10; Streiner & Norman, 2003).”
COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study (2020, background): “by evaluating the measurement property measurement error - in case of categorical outcomes also called ‘agreement’) [6].”
Conceptions of Efficiency: Applications in Learning and Problem Solving (2010, methodology): “The conditional likelihood model has been used extensively to assess diagnostic and screening effectiveness (Streiner, 2003; Streiner & Norman, 2003) and the effect of individual differences on critical thinking and reasoning (Stanovich et al., 2008).”
The Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (2015, background): “Reliability induction is an erroneous practice because, as psychometric theory states, reliability is not a property of the test itself, but of the test scores (Crocker & Algina, 1986; Lord & Novick, 1968; McDonald, 1999; Streiner & Norman, 2008).”
Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of victims? A two-year prospective study (2015, background): “However, as the Cronbach’s α has been associated with a range of methodological problems (such as being dependent on number if items as well as the magnitude of the correlations between items), this reliability measure should be interpreted with caution (Sijtsma, 2009; Streiner & Norman, 1989).”