PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8478809

Introduction to instrument development: scaling methods.

S Summers
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Deciding which instrument scale technique to choose is an important step in instrument development. Measurement theory dictates rules regarding level of measurement and approaches to decrease the error component of true scores. Measurement rules are applied to types of scaling, including methods to quantify demographic data, opinion rating scales, summated rating scales, semantic differential scales, and methods to quantify laboratory data. Consideration to scaling should be made before planning data analysis so that research questions or hypotheses can be answered using the appropriate statistical method.

Explore related subjects

BiasHumansNursing ResearchReproducibility of ResultsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Summers. 1993. Introduction to instrument development: scaling methods.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8478809/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed1998

Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials.

CONTEXT: The extent of concordance between meta-analyses and large trials on the same topic has been investigated with different protocols. Inconsistent conclusions created confusion regarding the validity of these major tools of clinical evidence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate protocols comparing meta-analyses and large trials in order to understand if and why they disagree on the concordance of these 2 clinical research methods. DESIGN: Systematic comparison of protocol designs, study selection, definitions of agreement, analysis methods, and reported discrepancies between large trials and meta-analyses. RESULTS: More discrepancies were claimed when large trials were selected from influential journals (which may prefer trials disagreeing with prior evidence) than from already performed meta-analyses (which may target homogeneous trials) and when both primary and secondary (rather than only primary) end points were considered. Depending on how agreement was defined, kappa coefficients varied from 0.22 (low agreement) to 0.72 (excellent agreement). The correlation of treatment effects between large trials and meta-analyses varied from -0.12 to 0.76, but was more similar (0.50-0.76) when only primary end points were considered. When both the magnitude and uncertainty of treatment effects were considered, large trials disagreed with meta-analyses 10% to 23% of the time. Discrepancies were attributed to different disease risks, variable protocols, quality, and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons of large trials with meta-analyses may reach different conclusions depending on how trials and meta-analyses are selected and how end points and agreement are defined. Scrutiny of these 2 major research methods can enhance our appreciation of both for guiding medical practice.

Bias↗