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 Experiment Videos

Measuring subjective outcomes: rethinking reliability and validity

T A Elasy1, G Gaddy

  • 1Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn, USA.

Journal of General Internal Medicine
|November 21, 1998
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Preventing glycaemic relapse in recently controlled type 2 diabetes patients: a randomised controlled trial.

Diabetologia·2010
Same author

Using real time process measurements to reduce catheter related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit.

Quality & safety in health care·2005
Same author

Body fat distribution and risk of diabetes among Chinese women.

International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders : journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity·2004
Same author

The role of advanced practice nurses in a shared care diabetes practice model.

The Diabetes educator·2002
Same author

Exercise and glycemic control in diabetes.

JAMA·2001
Same author

Overcoming turf battles: developing a pragmatic, collaborative model to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes.

The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement·2001
Same journal

Impact of Health Insurance Coverage on Diabetes Care Quality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in U.S. Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.

Journal of general internal medicine·2026
Same journal

Assessment of Physician Advocacy Engagement: A Scoping Review and Proposal of an Assessment Tool.

Journal of general internal medicine·2026
Same journal

Relative Burden of Social Determinants of Health on Diverse Populations of Health Resources and Services Administration Health Centers.

Journal of general internal medicine·2026
Same journal

Addressing Moral Distress Among Gender-Affirming Healthcare Professionals.

Journal of general internal medicine·2026
Same journal

Trainee-Led Patient Education to Increase Advance Care Planning in a Geriatric Primary Care Clinic.

Journal of general internal medicine·2026
Same journal

Scholarly Outcomes of a Small Projects Grant Program.

Journal of general internal medicine·2026
See all related articles

Reliability and validity metrics are crucial for assessing measurement adequacy. However, for subjective outcomes, correlation coefficients may not fully capture influences, necessitating a deeper understanding of their drivers.

Area of Science:

  • Psychometrics
  • Clinical Measurement
  • Health Outcomes Research

Background:

  • Reliability and validity are standard criteria for evaluating measurement tools.
  • Traditional definitions focus on consistency and accuracy, often using correlation coefficients.
  • These metrics can be less informative for subjective outcomes due to confounding factors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically examine the interpretation of reliability and validity coefficients for subjective outcome measures.
  • To highlight the limitations of correlation coefficients in reflecting true measurement adequacy for subjective data.
  • To improve clinicians' assessment of subjective outcome measures.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of reliability and validity in psychometrics.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of the influence of external factors on correlation coefficients.
  • Discussion of the relationship between hypothesis adequacy and validity coefficients.

    • Main Results:

    • Consistency of repeated measurements (reliability) does not guarantee an instrument's reliability.
    • Validity coefficients can be influenced by the investigator's hypothesis, not just the instrument's accuracy.
    • Standard interpretations of correlation coefficients are insufficient for subjective outcome measures.

    Conclusions:

    • A nuanced understanding of factors influencing correlation coefficients is essential for assessing subjective outcome measures.
    • Clinicians need to consider influences beyond simple consistency and accuracy.
    • Improved assessment of subjective outcome measures enhances clinical decision-making and research validity.