Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Western Journal of Nursing Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wynd, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wynd, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Schaefer, M. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Two Quantitative Approaches for Estimating Content Validity

Christine A. Wynd

University of Akron College of Nursing

Bruce Schmidt

Akron General Medical Center

Michelle Atkins Schaefer

914th Combat Support Hospital, Upper Arlington, Ohio

Instrument content validity is often established through qualitative expert reviews, yet quantitative analysis of reviewer agreements is also advocated in the literature.Two quantitative approaches to content validity estimations were compared and contrasted using a newly developed instrument called the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Tool (ORAT).Data obtained from a panel of eight expert judges were analyzed. A Content Validity Index (CVI) initially determined that only one item lacked interrater proportion agreement about its relevance to the instrument as a whole (CVI = 0.57). Concern that higher proportion agreement ratings might be due to random chance stimulated further analysis using a multirater kappa coefficient of agreement. An additional seven items had low kappas, ranging from 0.29 to 0.48 and indicating poor agreement among the experts. The findings supported the elimination or revision of eight items. Pros and cons to using both proportion agreement and kappa coefficient analysis are examined.

Key Words: content validity • instrument development • osteoporosis risk assessment • kappa coefficients • proportion agreement

Western Journal of Nursing Research, Vol. 25, No. 5, 508-518 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0193945903252998
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?