Psychometric Testing of the Chinese Version of the Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short Form in Adults With Chronic Illness
6
Citation
55
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Adaptive capacity may serve as an indicator of the individuals' coping behaviors toward illness management and may contribute to day-to-day living with chronic illness and improved quality of life. Practical and well-constructed instruments for measuring adaptation have not been adequately explored. An English 15-item Coping and Adaptation Processing-Short Form (CAPS-SF) for assessing adaptation has been created and validated in line with the underlying tenets of Coping and Adaptation Processing theory, but there is no applicable Chinese version.The CAPS-SF was translated and culturally adapted into simplified Chinese. Among Chinese adults with chronic illness, 81 patients were selected for cultural adaptation and 288 patients were approached for psychometric testing. Content validity was evaluated by an expert panel. Construct validity was tested by confirmatory factor analysis. Concurrent validity and predictive validity were analyzed by Spearman correlation coefficient. Reliability was assessed by internal consistency and test-retest coefficients. Floor/ceiling effect was calculated.Adequate content validity was ensured by the expert panel. A four-factor structure (resourceful and focused, self-initiated and knowing-based, physical and fixed, and positive and systematic) describing individuals' coping strategies was identified and verified. Concurrent validity and predictive validity were demonstrated by strong correlations with the confrontation of coping mode (r = 0.46) and a quality-of-life measure (r = 0.58). The McDonald's omega coefficient of total scale was 0.82. Split-half reliability and test-retest reliability were 0.87 and 0.87. No floor/ceiling effect was present.The Chinese version CAPS-SF is a theoretically based and culturally acceptable instrument with sound psychometric properties. Further studies are advocated to refine its four-factor structure.Keywords:
Concurrent validity
Content Validity
Criterion validity
Validity is a measure of how sound the instrument is. A valid instrument is one that measures what it states it measures and does not measure additional variables. Validity also applies to the interpretation. A valid study is one where the findings truly represent the variables you are claiming to measure. Therefore, the interpretations that are made based on the findings are appropriate given the design and method of the study. There are numerous types of validity: criterion, concurrent, ecological, and predictive. Criterion validity compares the test results with the outcome. This is commonly done by correlating the results of one assessment to the results of another assessment. Concurrent validity applies to the creation of a new test. To establish concurrent validity you would measure how well a new test compares to an established test. Ecological validity refers to how generalisable your study's results are to the real world. Predictive validity tells you how well a test can predict a characteristic of an individual. Reliability and validity are two terms commonly seen together. However, reliability and validity are distinct terms.
Concurrent validity
Criterion validity
Incremental validity
Ecological validity
Validity
External validity
Cite
Citations (4)
Three problems about the concept of validity were discussed here,which is the evolution of concept of validity and its existing problems,a new understanding of validity and how to construct validity.During the development of the concept of validity,content validity,predictive validity,construct validity as well as concurrent validity were prevailing until the emergence of construct validity in which all aspects of validity were involved.To date,the bias we put on the concept of validity were mainly originated from the way by which we have taken concept of validity as a nomological network.Actually,the concept of validity is a ontological claim which is seriously based on reference and causality.We should establish a theory hypothesis,form a test,and confirm the measure attribute,so we could obtain the validity.
Nomological network
Concurrent validity
Criterion validity
External validity
Incremental validity
Content Validity
Validity
Internal validity
Face validity
Cite
Citations (0)
Concurrent validity
Criterion validity
Exploratory factor analysis
Content Validity
Internal validity
Discriminant validity
Cite
Citations (2)
Construct validity theory presents the most comprehensive description of “validity” as it pertains to educational and psychological testing. The term “construct validity” was introduced in 1954 in the Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques (American Psychological Association [APA], 1954), and subsequently elucidated by two members of the 1954 committee — Cronbach and Meehl (1955). Construct validity theory has had enormous impact on the theoretical descriptions of validity, but it was not explicitly supported by the last two versions of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association [AERA] et al., 1999, 2014). In this article I trace some of the history of the debate regarding the importance of construct validity theory for test val- idation, identify the essential elements of construct validity theory that are critical for validating the use of a test for a particular purpose, and propose a framework for test validation that focuses on test use, rather than test construct. This “de-constructed” approach involves four steps: (a) clearly articulating testing purposes, (b) identifying potential negative consequences of test use, (c) crossing test purposes and potential misuses with the five sources of validity evidence listed in the AERA et al. (2014) Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, and (d) prioritizing the sources of validity evidence needed to build a sound validity argument that focuses on test use and consequences. The goals of deconstructed validation are to embrace the major tenets involved in construct validity theory by using them to develop a coherent and comprehensive validity argument that is comprehensible to psychometricians, court justices, policy makers, and the general public; and is consistent with the AERA et al. (2014) Standards.
Criterion validity
Test theory
External validity
Argument (complex analysis)
Concurrent validity
Incremental validity
Validity
Cite
Citations (10)
Abstract Over the past 50 years, the meaning of ‘validity’ has changed. It no longer is seen as an intrinsic property of the test, but as an interaction among the scale, those who are completing it, and the circumstances under which it is taken. Furthermore, there are not different ‘types’ of validity, but only different procedures to assess construct validity. This chapter discusses the various ways of establishing construct validity: content validation, concurrent criterion validation, and predictive criterion validation.
Concurrent validity
Criterion validity
External validity
Content Validity
Validity
Cite
Citations (14)
Concurrent validity
Counselor education
Cite
Citations (18)
Content Validity
Concurrent validity
Convergent validity
Criterion validity
Validity
External validity
Incremental validity
Sample (material)
Cite
Citations (3)
Abstract The two basic principles of the problem in assessment are determining whether a test has measured what is being measured and whether a test has been appropriately used to make a decision about the test taker. It is possible that the test developers argue that math tests for example can predict a person’s ability in physics. Validity or validity comes from the word validity, which means the extent of accuracy and accuracy of a measuring instrument in performing its measuring function. In other words, validity is a concept related to the extent to which the test has measured what should be measured. In this study discusses the meaning of validity, types of validity, testing the validity of tests, testing the validity of tests rationally, construct validity, content validity, testing the validity of tests empirically, forecast validity, comparative validity, question validity, and validity testing calculations. items of measurement results. With the method of quantitative data analysis, the results of the research from the distribution of questionnaires to 20 (twenty) respondents, 10 (ten) of them were tested for validity and it was found that 7 (seven) items were valid and 3 (three) invalid.
Criterion validity
Incremental validity
Concurrent validity
Content Validity
External validity
Validity
Cite
Citations (41)
Content Validity
Criterion validity
Content (measure theory)
Validity
Cite
Citations (8)
The purpose of this study was to validate the eoSim box laparoscopic simulator using measures of construct, concurrent, and content validity.Forty-seven novice and expert participants were tested on both the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS™; Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Los Angles, CA) and eoSim (eoSurgical™, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom) laparoscopic simulators, using established scoring mechanisms. Three skill areas were examined: object transfer, precision cutting, and intracorporeal suturing. A questionnaire was also completed.Experts performed significantly better on the eoSim than novices, with a median score of 51.1% versus 14.8% (P<.0001), showing construct validity. There was a high correlation between performance on the validated FLS simulator and the eoSim (0.78; P<.0001), demonstrating concurrent validity. Feedback from participants indicated an agreement that the eoSim was a useful training tool providing content validity.The eoSim demonstrates validity as a model for laparoscopic simulation. It is hoped that its decreased cost relative to other simulators will encourage increased uptake by trainees and institutions.
Content Validity
Concurrent validity
Face validity
Cite
Citations (53)