Korean J Women Health Nurs.  2021 Mar;27(1):10-13. 10.4069/kjwhn.2021.01.31.

Psychometric property of an instrument 1: content validity

• Lee EH

• KMID: 2514700
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2021.01.31

Reference

References

1. Stevens SS. Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons;1951.

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Reg. 2009; 74(235):65132–65133.

3. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(7):737–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.

4. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986; 35(6):382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017.

5. Polit DF, Yang FM. Measurement and the measurement of change. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer;2016.

6. Terwee CB, Prinsen CA, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0.

7. Lee HJ, Song R, Lee EH, Ann SH. Research methods and critical appraisal. Seoul, KR: Koonja Publishing;2017.

8. Lee EH, Tahk SJ, Shin JH, Lee YW, Song R. Development and psychometric evaluation of cardiovascular disease-specific quality of life scale for Koreans. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2007; 37(3):313–323. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2007.37.3.313.

9. Yun YH, Park YS, Lee ES, Bang SM, Heo DS, Park SY, et al. Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2004; 13(4):863–868. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000021692.81214.70.

10. Lee EH, Chun M, Wang HJ, Lim HY, Choi JH. Multidimensional constructs of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-c30) in Korean cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Cancer Res Treat. 2005; 37(3):148–156. https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2005.37.3.148.

11. Jung YM, Park JH. Development and validation of the cancer-specific posttraumatic growth inventory. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2017; 47(3):319–331. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2017.47.3.319.

12. Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing research. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company; 1991.

13. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975; 28(4):563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.

14. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006; 29(5):489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147.

15. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res. 2003; 25(5):508–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945903252998.

16. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007; 30(4):459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199.

17. Beckstead JW. Content validity is naught. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009; 46(9):1274–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.04.014.

18. Lee EH, Kang EH, Kang HJ. Evaluation of studies on the measurement properties of self-reported instruments. Asian Nurs Res. 2020; 14(5):267–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2020.11.004.

19. Lee J, Lee EH, Chae D, Kim CJ. Patient-reported outcome measures for diabetes self-care: A systematic review of measurement properties. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020; 105:103498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103498.