RGS EASY
sandesh121
ResearchMethodsEssentialKnowledgeBase_2e_Ch05_PowerPoint.pptx5
Introduction to Measurement
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
1
Research topics are often abstract
These topics must be translated into measurable constructs
No measurement is perfect
Example: your weight may be different on even the same scale!
5.1 Foundations of Measurement
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
2
5.1a Levels of Measurement
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 5.3 Relationship between attributes and values in a measure.
For nominal data, such as party affiliation, we need to assign values (codes) to each category, so we can analyze the data numerically.
3
5.1a The Hierarchy of Levels of Measurement
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 5.4 The hierarchy of levels of measurement.
Nominal Level of Measurement: Measuring a variable by assigning a number arbitrarily in order to name it numerically so that it might be distinguished from other objects. The jersey numbers in most sports are measured at a nominal level.
Ordinal Level of Measurement: Measuring a variable using rankings. Class rank is a variable measured at an ordinal level.
Interval Level of Measurement: Measuring a variable on a scale where the distance between numbers is interpretable. For instance, temperature in Fahrenheit or Celsius is measured on an interval level.
Ratio Level of Measurement: Measuring a variable on a scale where the distance between numbers is interpretable and there is an absolute zero value. For example, weight is a ratio measurement.
4
Two key concepts:
Reliability
Validity
5.2 Quality of Measurement
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
True score theory
Measurement error
Random error
Systematic error
Pay attention to potential bias
5.2a Reliability
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
True score theory: maintains that every observable score is the sum of two components: true ability (or the true level) of the respondent on that measure; and random error. The true score is essentially the score that a person would have received if the score were perfectly accurate.
Random error: A component or part of the value of a measure that varies entirely by chance. Random error adds noise to a measure and obscures the true value.
Bias: A systematic error in an estimate. A bias can be the result of any factor that leads to an incorrect estimate. In measurement a bias can either be systematic and consistent or random. In either case, when bias exists, the values that are measured do not accurately reflect the true value.
6
Pilot test instruments
When using observers as data collectors, make sure they are trained
Double check the data
Use statistical procedures to adjust for measurement error
Triangulate: combine multiple measurements
5.2a How to Reduce Measurement Error
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Reliable means a measurement is repeatable and consistent
Reliability is a ratio:
The proportion of truth in your observation
Determined using a group of individuals, not a single observation
Variance and standard deviation
The higher the correlation, the more reliable the measure
5.2b Theories of Reliability
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Inter-rater or inter-observer reliability
Cohen’s Kappa
5.2c Types of Reliability: Inter-rater
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 5.17 If only there were consensus!
Inter-rater or inter-observer reliability is used to assess the degree to which different raters/observers give consistent estimates of the same phenomenon.
Courtesy of Robert Michael/Corbis
Cohen’s kappa: A statistical estimate of inter-rater agreement or reliability that is more robust than percent agreement because it adjusts for the probability that some agreement is due to random chance.
9
5.2c Types of Reliability: Test-Retest
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 5.19 Test-retest reliability.
You estimate test-retest reliability when you administer the same test to the same (or a similar) sample on two different occasions
10
5.2c Types of Reliability: Parallel-Forms Reliability
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 5.20 Parallel-forms reliability.
Two forms of the instrument are created. The correlation between the two parallel forms is the estimate of reliability.
11
Average inter-item correlation
Average item-total correlation
Split-half reliability
Cronbach’s alpha (α)
5.2c Types of Reliability: Internal Consistency
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Average Inter-Item Correlation: The average inter-item correlation uses all of the items on your instrument that are designed to measure the same construct. You first compute the correlation between each pair of items.
Average Item-Total Correlation: This approach also uses the inter-item correlations. In addition, you compute a total score for the items and treat that in the analysis like an additional variable.
Split-Half Reliability: In split-half reliability, you randomly divide into two sets all items that measure the same construct. You administer the entire instrument to a sample and calculate the total score for each randomly divided half of the measure. The split-half reliability estimate is simply the correlation between these two total scores.
Cronbach’s Alpha: One specific method of estimating the reliability of a measure. Although not calculated in this manner, Cronbach’s Alpha can be thought of as analogous to the average of all possible split-half correlations.
12
Construct validity
Operationalization
The act of translating a construct into its manifestation, for example, translating the idea of your treatment or program into the actual program, or translating the idea of what you want to measure into the real measure
The result is also referred to as an operationalization, that is, you might describe your actual program as an operationalized program
5.2d Validity
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Translation validity
Face validity
Content validity
Criterion-related validity
Predictive validity
Concurrent validity
Convergent validity
Discriminant validity
5.2e Construct Validity and Other Measurement Validity Labels
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Translation validity: A type of construct validity related to how well you translated the idea of your measure into its operationalization.
Face validity: A validity that checks that “on its face” the operationalization seems like a good translation of the construct.
Content validity: A check of the operationalization against the relevant content domain for the construct.
Criterion-related validity: The validation of a measure based on its relationship to another independent measure as predicted by your theory of how the measures should behave.
Predictive validity: A type of construct validity based on the idea that your measure is able to predict what it theoretically should be able to predict.
Concurrent validity: An operationalization’s ability to distinguish between groups that it should theoretically be able to distinguish between.
Convergent validity: the degree to which the operationalization is similar to (converges on) other operationalizations to which it theoretically should be similar.
Discriminant validity: The degree to which concepts that should not be related theoretically are, in fact, not interrelated in reality.
14
5.2e Construct Validity; Putting it Together
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 5.29 Convergent and discriminant validity correlations in a single table or correlation matrix
15
Inadequate preoperational explication of constructs
Mono-operation and mono-method bias
Interaction of different treatments, or of testing and treatment
Restricted generalizability across constructs
Confounding constructs and levels of constructs
5.2f Threats to Construct Validity
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Inadequate Preoperational Explication of Constructs: failing to define what you meant by the construct before you tried to translate it into a measure or program.
Mono-operation bias: A threat to construct validity that occurs when you rely on only a single implementation of your independent variable, cause, program,
or treatment in your study.
Mono-method bias: A threat to construct validity that occurs because you use only a single method of measurement.
Interaction of different treatments: When participants are involved in more than one course of treatment, you cannot be sure it was your treatment that caused a change.
Interaction of testing and treatment: Sometimes, the act of being tested itself can cause participants performance to change on a given construct.
Restricted generalizability across constructs: Is spending money on fun things the same as spending money on bills? The two constructs are different, and therefore generalizing is restricted.
Confounding constructs and levels: Is spending $5 the same as spending $500? The five dollar and five hundred dollar categories are levels of the construct “spending.” A different level may have a greater or lesser effect on the dependent variable.
16
Hypothesis guessing
Evaluation apprehension
Researcher expectations
5.2g The Social Threats to Construct Validity
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Hypothesis guessing: A threat to construct validity and a source of bias in which participants in a study guess the purpose of the study and adjust their
responses based on that.
Evaluation Apprehension: When the act of being evaluated or tested causes anxiety in participants, thus altering their natural performance or behavior.
Researcher Expectations: A researcher can unconsciously and subtly influence the behavior of participants with body language, appearance, etc.
17
5.3 Integrating Reliability and Validity
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
18
Why are reliability and validity in our measurements important?
How does test-retest reliability work? Illustrate with an example.
Is it better to administer just one measurement of a construct? Why or why not?
Discuss and Debate
© 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Reliability and validity in measurement are the cornerstones of any research project. If your measurement is not reliable and valid, then your study results will be flawed.
Test-retest reliability occurs when we give the same test to a respondent twice, and then look at the correlation between the scores. A low correlation indicates that the respondent has changed his or her responses. When this happens, the test may be flawed, and is not considered reliable.
When a researcher relies on only one form of measurement, a mono-method bias can skew the results of the study.
19
