scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Criterion validity

About: Criterion validity is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5353 publications have been published within this topic receiving 326753 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity, which makes it a useful clinical and research tool.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity.

26,004 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Considering the diverse samples in this study, IPAQ has reasonable measurement properties for monitoring population levels of physical activity among 18- to 65-yr-old adults in diverse settings.
Abstract: CRAIG, C. L., A. L. MARSHALL, M. SJOSTROM, A. E. BAUMAN, M. L. BOOTH, B. E. AINSWORTH, M. PRATT, U. EKELUND, A. YNGVE, J. F. SALLIS, and P. OJA. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 1381-1395, 2003. Background: Physical inactivity is a global concern, but diverse physical activity measures in use prevent international comparisons. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was developed as an instrument for cross-national monitoring of physical activity and inactivity. Methods: Between 1997 and 1998, an International Consensus Group developed four long and four short forms of the IPAQ instruments (administered by telephone interview or self-administration, with two alternate reference periods, either the "last 7 d" or a "usual week" of recalled physical activity). During 2000, 14 centers from 12 countries collected reliability and/or validity data on at least two of the eight IPAQ instruments. Test-retest repeatability was assessed within the same week. Concurrent (inter-method) validity was assessed at the same administration, and criterion IPAQ validity was assessed against the CSA (now MTI) accelerometer. Spearman's correlation coefficients are reported, based on the total reported physical activity. Results: Overall, the IPAQ questionnaires produced repeatable data (Spearman's clustered around 0.8), with comparable data from short and long forms. Criterion validity had a median of about 0.30, which was comparable to most other self-report validation studies. The "usual week" and "last 7 d" reference periods performed similarly, and the reliability of telephone administration was similar to the self-administered mode. Conclusions: The IPAQ instruments have acceptable measurement properties, at least as good as other established self-reports. Considering the diverse samples in this study, IPAQ has reasonable measurement properties for monitoring population levels of physical activity among 18- to 65-yr-old adults in diverse settings. The short IPAQ form "last 7 d recall" is recommended for national monitoring and the long form for research requiring more detailed assessment. Key Words: MEASUREMENT, SURVEILLANCE, EPIDEMIOLOGY

15,345 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The present interpretation of construct validity is not "official" and deals with some areas where the Committee would probably not be unanimous, but the present writers are solely responsible for this attempt to explain the concept and elaborate its implications.
Abstract: Validation of psychological tests has not yet been adequately conceptualized, as the APA Committee on Psychological Tests learned when it undertook (1950-54) to specify what qualities should be investigated before a test is published. In order to make coherent recommendations the Committee found it necessary to distinguish four types of validity, established by different types of research and requiring different interpretation. The chief innovation in the Committee's report was the term construct validity.[2] This idea was first formulated by a subcommittee (Meehl and R. C. Challman) studying how proposed recommendations would apply to projective techniques, and later modified and clarified by the entire Committee (Bordin, Challman, Conrad, Humphreys, Super, and the present writers). The statements agreed upon by the Committee (and by committees of two other associations) were published in the Technical Recommendations (59). The present interpretation of construct validity is not "official" and deals with some areas where the Committee would probably not be unanimous. The present writers are solely responsible for this attempt to explain the concept and elaborate its implications.

9,935 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The criteria can be used in systematic reviews of health status questionnaires, to detect shortcomings and gaps in knowledge of measurement properties, and to design validation studies.

7,439 citations

Book
01 Nov 1979
TL;DR: The paper shows how reliability is assessed by the retest method, alternative-forms procedure, split-halves approach, and internal consistency method.
Abstract: Explains how social scientists can evaluate the reliability and validity of empirical measurements, discussing the three basic types of validity: criterion related, content, and construct. In addition, the paper shows how reliability is assessed by the retest method, alternative-forms procedure, split-halves approach, and internal consistency method.

7,135 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Anxiety
141.1K papers, 4.7M citations
86% related
Psychological intervention
82.6K papers, 2.6M citations
86% related
Mental health
183.7K papers, 4.3M citations
83% related
Personality
75.6K papers, 2.6M citations
81% related
Cognition
99.9K papers, 4.3M citations
81% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
202379
2022146
2021402
2020339
2019276
2018249