PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11004873

Large-sample confidence intervals for validity and reliability coefficients.

J L Mendoza·K L Stafford·J M Stauffer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large-sample confidence intervals (CI) for reliability, validity, and unattenuated validity are presented. The CI for unattenuated validity is based on the Bonferroni inequality, which relies on one CI for test-retest reliability and one for validity. Covered are four reliability-validity situations: (a) both estimates were from random samples; (b) reliability was from a random sample but validity was from a selected sample; (c) validity was from a random sample but reliability was from a selected sample; and (d) both estimates were from selected samples. All CIs were evaluated by using a simulation. CIs on reliability, validity, or unattenuated validity are accurate as long as selection ratio is at least 20% and selected sample size is 100 or larger. When selection ratio is less than 20%, estimators tend to underestimate their parameters.

Explore related subjects

Confidence IntervalsHumansMonte Carlo MethodPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeSampling StudiesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J L Mendoza, K L Stafford, J M Stauffer. 2000. Large-sample confidence intervals for validity and reliability coefficients.. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.5.3.356

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Teaching hypothesis tests--time for significant change?

Confusion in the teaching of statistical inference dates back to the conflict of Fisher's P-values and significance tests with the Neyman-Pearson hypothesis testing approach. To avoid the well-known pitfalls arising from over-reliance on significance tests and the division of results into 'significant' or 'not significant', many medical journals now insist that presentation of statistical analyses includes confidence intervals as well as or instead of P-values. The confusion over how to report statistical analyses which is evident in the recent medical literature is matched by divergent teaching of hypothesis tests between the 16 U.K. medical schools represented at the April 2000 Burwalls meeting. Suggested guidelines for the teaching of statistical inference to medical students are presented, and possible future developments are discussed.

Confidence Intervals↗
PubMed2002

A quasi-exact method for the confidence intervals of the difference of two independent binomial proportions in small sample cases.

In this paper we propose a quasi-exact alternative to the exact unconditional method by Chan and Zhang (1999) estimating confidence intervals for the difference of two independent binomial proportions in small sample cases. The quasi-exact method is an approximation to a modified version of Chan and Zhang's method, where the two-sided p-value of an observation is defined by adding to the one-sided p-value the sum of all probabilities of more "extreme" events in the unobserved tail. We show that distinctively less conservative interval estimates can be derived following the modified definition of the two-sided p-value. The approximations applied in the quasi-exact method help to simplify the computations greatly, while the resulting infringements to the nominal level are low. Compared with other approximate methods, including the mid-p quasi-exact methods and the Miettinen and Nurminen (M&N) asymptotic method, our quasi-exact method demonstrates much better reliability in small sample cases.

Confidence Intervals↗