PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1947873

Measurement and reliability: statistical thinking considerations.

Abstract

Reliability is defined as the degree to which multiple assessments of a subject agree (reproducibility). There is increasing awareness among researchers that the two most appropriate measures of reliability are the intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa. However, unacceptable statistical measures of reliability such as chi-square, percent agreement, product moment correlation, as well as any measure of association and Yule's Y still appear in the literature. There are costs associated with improper measurements, unreliable diagnostic systems, inappropriate statistics and measures of reliability, and poor quality research. Costs are incurred when misleading information directs resources and talents into nonproductive avenues of research. The consequences of unreliable measurements and diagnosis are illustrated with some studies of schizophrenia.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J J Bartko. 1991. Measurement and reliability: statistical thinking considerations.. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul%2F17.3.483

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Issues in cost function specification for neonatal care: the Fordham case.

BACKGROUND: Econometric techniques have been used to examine the relationship between costs of provision, case mix and unit size for health care providers. Estimation of cost functions in a health care context is complicated by poor understanding of the underlying production relationship and the constraints under which production takes place. Different results and policy implications can follow from different model specifications. This underscores the need for care in the construction of such functions and the interpretation of their results. METHODS: Cost and activity data from a study of neonatal care for an English Regional Health Authority are re-examined. Cost functions are estimated using alternative functional forms, and average cost per day is estimated and compared for two of these functions [one produced by Fordham et al. (J Publ Hlth Med 1992; 14(2): 127-130) and the other based more explicitly in economic and econometric theory]. RESULTS: It is shown that estimates of average cost per day are sensitive to model specification. Such are the differences in cost that significantly different policy implications could follow from the different models. CONCLUSION: We conclude that care must be taken in the construction and estimation of cost functions and that the assumptions upon which they rest be made explicit so that results can be properly interpreted.

Cost Allocation