Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Reliability and Validity01:29

Reliability and Validity

12.7K
Reliability and validity are two important considerations that must be made with any type of data collection. Reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result. In the context of psychological research, this would mean that any instruments or tools used to collect data do so in consistent, reproducible ways.
12.7K
Statistical Analysis: Overview01:11

Statistical Analysis: Overview

6.1K
When we take repeated measurements on the same or replicated samples, we will observe inconsistencies in the magnitude. These inconsistencies are called errors. To categorize and characterize these results and their errors, the researcher can use statistical analysis to determine the quality of the measurements and/or suitability of the methods.
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
6.1K
Self-Report Tests of Personality01:22

Self-Report Tests of Personality

309
Self-report inventories are objective personality assessments that use multiple-choice items or numbered scales, typically ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). They are often called Likert scales after Rensis Likert. These inventories are widely used due to their ease of administration and cost-effectiveness. One of the most prominent examples is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), initially developed in the 1940s to assess abnormal personality traits.
309
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

73.4K
Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value. 
73.4K
Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation01:19

Testing a Claim about Standard Deviation

2.4K
A complete procedure to test a claim about population standard deviation or population variance is explained here.
The hypothesis testing for the claim of population standard deviation (or variance) requires the data and samples to be random and unbiased. The population distribution also must be normal. There is no specific requirement on the sample size as the estimation is based on the chi-square distribution.
As a first step, the hypothesis (null and alternative) concerning the claim about...
2.4K
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

1.4K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
1.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Longitudinal ctDNA tracking by low-pass whole-genome sequencing predicts CAR-T outcomes in B-cell lymphomas.

iScience·2026
Same author

UPLC-MS/MS-based metabolomics analysis identifies disease-associated metabolic signatures of B cells from patients with IgG4-RD.

Frontiers in immunology·2026
Same author

A novel prognostic model integrating host vulnerability and tumor biology for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: the BAMAL score.

Frontiers in oncology·2026
Same author

Quantitative comparative analysis of different CT modalities in systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease: correlations with lung function, serological biomarkers, and disease stratification.

Journal of thoracic disease·2026
Same author

Structural plasticity enables broad cAn binding and dual activation of CRISPR-associated ribonuclease Cdn1.

Nucleic acids research·2026
Same author

Lymphoma-Associated Bone Marrow Hemophagocytosis (LA-BMHPC): A Retrospective, Single-Center Study of 67 Patients.

International journal of medical sciences·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 7, 2025

Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity
08:40

Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity

Published on: June 12, 2019

7.4K

Comparison of different reliability estimation methods for single-item assessment: a simulation study.

Sijun Zhang1, Kimberly Colvin2

  • 1Institute of Educational Sciences, Hunan University, Changsha, China.

Frontiers in Psychology
|November 18, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Researchers can best estimate single-item assessment reliability by combining the double monotonicity model and correction for attenuation methods. This simulation study found these combined approaches yield the most precise reliability estimates for single-item measures.

Keywords:
Guttman’s λ6correction for attenuationdouble monotonicity modelfactor analysislatent class modelreliabilitysimulation studysingle-item assessment

More Related Videos

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
09:36

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study

Published on: February 2, 2017

27.0K
Author Spotlight: Assessing the Reliability of Doppler Ultrasound in Measuring Leg Blood Flow
09:18

Author Spotlight: Assessing the Reliability of Doppler Ultrasound in Measuring Leg Blood Flow

Published on: December 15, 2023

2.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 7, 2025

Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity
08:40

Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity

Published on: June 12, 2019

7.4K
Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
09:36

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study

Published on: February 2, 2017

27.0K
Author Spotlight: Assessing the Reliability of Doppler Ultrasound in Measuring Leg Blood Flow
09:18

Author Spotlight: Assessing the Reliability of Doppler Ultrasound in Measuring Leg Blood Flow

Published on: December 15, 2023

2.7K

Area of Science:

  • Psychometrics
  • Educational Measurement
  • Psychological Assessment

Background:

  • Single-item assessments are increasingly used across disciplines.
  • Existing methods for estimating their reliability include factor analysis, correction for attenuation, double monotonicity model, Guttman's λ6, and latent class models.
  • Empirical validation of these reliability estimation methods for single-item assessments is lacking.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To empirically investigate and compare the effectiveness of different methods for estimating the reliability of single-item assessments.
  • To identify the most accurate method for assessing the reliability of single-item measures.

Main Methods:

  • A simulation study was conducted to evaluate various reliability estimation methods.
  • Simulation parameters included item discrimination, multi-item test length, sample size, and correlation between single-item and multi-item assessments.
  • Methods evaluated included those based on factor analysis, correction for attenuation, double monotonicity model, Guttman's λ6, and latent class models.

Main Results:

  • The combination of the double monotonicity model and correction for attenuation methods provided the most precise reliability estimates in 94.44% of simulated cases.
  • Factors such as item discrimination, multi-item test length, sample size, and correlation did not significantly influence the choice of the best method.
  • No single method consistently outperformed others across all simulation conditions.

Conclusions:

  • Simultaneous application of the double monotonicity model and correction for attenuation offers the most reliable approach for estimating single-item assessment reliability.
  • The identified optimal method is robust across various item and sample characteristics.
  • This finding provides practical guidance for researchers utilizing single-item assessments.