Exercise 13 & 14 (Total 20 questions) - Reliability and Validity - Short case based problems.

EXERCISE 14 Questions to be Graded

RESEARCH ARTICLE 2

Source: Dobratz, M. C. (2004). The life closure scale: Additional psychometric testing of a tool to measure psychological adaptation in death and dying. Research in Nursing & Health, 27 (1), 52–62.

Relevant Study Results

Dobratz developed a Life Closure Scale (LCS) in 1990 to explore the dimensions of psychological adaptation in terminal illness. The focus of this research article was the expansion of the reliability and validity of the LCS (Dobratz, 2004). The following excerpt from this study discusses the quality of LCS as a measure of psychological adaptation in terminal illness.

“The 45-item LCS was designed as a 5-point Likert-type scale with a scaling format that ranges from 1 (a little of the time) to 5 (most of the time), with higher scores indicating increased psychological adaptation. … LCS has two reliable subscales: (1) the self-reconciled and (2) the self-restructuring. … A Cronbach's alpha of .80 was obtained for the total scale, with consistency reliabilities of .85 (self-reconciled) and .86 (self-restructuring) for the subscales.

“Convergent and divergent validity was established with the City of Hope Medical Center Quality of Life (QOL) Survey … and the Zung Depression Scale. … The total LCS converged with those items in the QOL survey that measured psychological well-being (.82), with the self-restructuring showing a moderate correlation of .69, and the self-reconciled a lower correlation of .37. … [T]he LCS diverged from the Zung subscale of psychological disturbance and showed low negative correlations for self-restructuring (−.46) and self-reconciled (−.38). The total LCS and the Zung subscale of psychological disturbance showed a moderate negative correlation of −.60” (Dobratz, 2004, p. 55). By definition of this author, −.60 is considered a strong negative correlation.

“To assure that the scale's theoretical structure was valid and the correlations between the variables were ordered … factor analysis was performed on the 20-item LCS” (Dobratz, 2004, p. 56). The factor analysis identified two major variables that were consistent with the two subscales of self-restructuring and self-reconciled.

“The two independent subscales of the ABS [Affect Balance Scale], the Positive Affect Scale (PAS) and the Negative Affect Scale (NAS), were then correlated with the LCS. … A significant correlation between the LCS and the PAS (r =.36, p <.001) showed a significant and positive relationship between the tool and a measure of psychological well-being. The correlation between the LCS and the NAS was r = –.59, p <.001), showing a significant negative association of the LCS with mental distress” (Dobratz, 2004, p.57).

For Questions 1 through 7, please refer to the excerpt from Research Article 2.

1. The correlation of the total LCS and its two subscales of self-reconciled and self-restructuring with the Zung Depression Scale is an example of what type of construct validity? Provide a rationale for your answer.

2. Were the correlational values of the Zung Depression Scale with the total LCS and its two subscales acceptable to strengthen the validity of the LCS? Provide a rationale for your answer.

3. The correlation of the total LCS and its two subscales of self-reconciled and self-restructuring with the Quality of Life (QOL) Survey is an example of what type of construct validity? Provide a rationale for your answer.

4. Were the correlational values of the QOL Survey with the total LCS and its two subscales acceptable to strengthen the validity of the LCS? Provide a rationale for your answer.

5. The correlation of the LCS with the NAS is an example of what type of construct validity? Is this correlational value acceptable to strengthen the validity of the LCS? Provide a rationale for your answer.

6. Besides the convergent and divergent validity information, is there any other type of construct validity addressed in the Relevant Study Results of Research Article 2? If so, describe the type of validity.

7. Based on the information provided from the Dobratz (2004) study, do you think the LCS is a quality measurement method with acceptable reliability and validity? Provide a rationale for your answer.

RESEARCH ARTICLE 3

Source: Champion, V., Skinner, C. S., & Menon, U. (2005). Development of a self-efficacy scale for mammography. Research in Nursing & Health, 28 (4), 329–36.

Relevant Study Results

Champion et al. (2005) developed a self-efficacy scale for mammography. “A Cronbach alpha correlation coefficient of .87 was obtained for the total self-efficacy scale” (Champion et al., 2005, p. 332). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the self-efficacy scale data to determine the theoretical structure of the scale. In addition, the self-efficacy scale was given to subjects to predict the likelihood of women getting a mammogram.

For Questions 8 through 10, please refer to the excerpt from Research Article 3.

8. Using the self-efficacy scale to predict the likelihood of women getting a mammogram is an example of what type of construct validity? Provide a rationale for your answer.

9. Why was confirmatory factor analysis done in this study?

10. Discuss the reliability and validity of the self-efficacy scale. Would you recommend the use of this scale to measure self-efficacy for mammography in your patients?