PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16405139

Using the score method to construct asymmetric confidence intervals: an SAS program for content validation in scale development.

Abstract

Expert review sessions are often conducted to determine the content validity of scale items. The accurate quantification of content validity is usually limited by a relatively small number of experts as well as by a small number of rating categories. These factors, combined with the bounded and discrete nature of rating scale categories, hinder use of traditional methods for computing standard errors and confidence intervals. Using an application of the score method, researchers can construct an asymmetric interval that is better suited for these situations. SAS code is provided to automate the computations, and a discussion of two methods for using the obtained results for content validation decision-making follows.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeffrey M Miller, Randall D Penfield. 2005. Using the score method to construct asymmetric confidence intervals: an SAS program for content validation in scale development.. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192713

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Value of high-cost cancer care: a behavioral science perspective.

Concerns about the high costs of cancer care have led to a renewed interest in understanding how patients value the outcomes of care. Psychologists, economists, and others have highlighted some of the ways in which patients and caregivers perceive and make treatment decisions. Prospect theory is the predominant framework for understanding decisions made in situations where the outcomes of each choice are uncertain. Prospect theory assumes that a patient values the outcomes of care not in absolute terms, such as years of life saved, but as deviations from the patient's point of reference. This article discusses some of the implications of this notion, along with discussing differences among people in their reference points. These and other considerations from the psychology of decision making help to clarify why some patients might be inclined to seek expensive or risky treatments in the hopes of achieving benefits that others might consider not worthwhile. An appreciation of these psychological issues might improve the quality of debates concerning the rising costs of cancer care.

Behavioral Sciences↗