RELIABILITY consistency or reproducibility of a test score (or measurement)

RELIABILITY

consistency or reproducibility of a test score (or measurement)

Common approaches to estimating reliability

Classical True Score Theory– test-retest, alternate forms, internal consistency

useful for estimating relative decisions

– intraclass correlation useful for estimating absolute decisions

Generalizability Theory– can estimate both relative & absolute

Reliability is a concept central to all behavioral sciences. To some extent all measures are unreliable. This is especially true with psychological measures and measurements based on human observation

Sources of Error

Random– fluctuations in the measurement based purely

on chance. Systematic

– Measurement error that affect a score because of some particular characteristic of the person or the test that has nothing to due with the construct being measured.

CTST

X = T + E– Recognizes only two sources of variance

test -retest (stability) alternate forms (equivalence in item sampling) test-retest with alternate forms (stability &

equivalence but these are confounded)

– Cannot adequately estimate individual sources of error influencing a measurement

ICC

Uses ANOVA to partition variance due to between subjects and within subjects– Has some ability to accommodate multiple

sources of variance– Does not provide an integrated approach to

estimating reliability under multiple conditions

Generalizability Theory

The Dependability of Behavioral Measures, (1972) Cronbach, Glaser, Nanda, & Rajaratnam

Dependability

The accuracy of generalizing from a person’s observed score on a measure to the average score that person would have received under all possible testing conditions the tester would be willing to accept.

The Decision Maker

The score on which the decision is to be based is only one of many scores that might serve the same purpose. The decision maker is almost never interested in the response given to the particular moment of testing.

Ideally the decision should be based on that person’s mean score over all possible measurement occasions.

Universe of Generalization

Definition & establishment of the universe admissible observations:– observations that the decision maker is willing

to treat as interchangeable.– all sources of influence acting on the measurement of the trait under study.

What are the sources of ERROR influencing your measurement?

Generalizability Issues

Facet of Generalization– raters, trials, days, clinics, therapists

Facet of Determination– usually people, but can vary (e.g. raters)

Types of Studies

Generalizability Study (G-Study)

Decision Study (D-Study)

G-Study

Purpose is to anticipate the multiple uses of a measurement.

To provide as much information as possible about the sources of variation in the measurement.

The G-Study should attempt to identify and incorporate into its design as many potential sources of variation as possible.

D-Study

Makes use of the information provided by the G-Study to design the best possible application of the measurement for a particular purpose.

Planning a D-Study:– defines the Universe of Generalization– specifies the proposed interpretation of the

measurement.– uses G-Study information to evaluate the effectiveness

of alternative designs for minimizing error and maximizing reliability.

Design Considerations

Fixed Facets

Random Facets

Fixed Facet

When the levels of the facet exhaust all possible conditions in the universe to which the investigator wants to generalize.

When the level of the facet represent a convenient sub-sample of all possible conditions in the universe.

Random Facets

When it is assumed that the levels of the facet represent a random sample of all possible levels described by the facet.

If you are willing to EXCHANGE the conditions (levels) under study for any other set of conditions of the same size from the universe.

Types of Decisions

Relative– establish a rank order of individuals (or

groups).– the comparison of a subject’s performance

against others in the group. Absolute

– to index an individual’s (or group’s) absolute level of measurement.

– measurement results are to be made independent from the performance of others in the group.

Statistical Modeling

ANOVA – just as ANOVA partitions a dependent variable

into effects for the independent variable (main effects & interactions), G-theory uses ANOVA to partition an individual’s measurement score into an effect for the universe-score and an effect for each source of error and their interactions in the design.

In ANOVA we were driven to test specific hypotheses about our independent variables and thus sought out the F statistic and p-value.

In G-theory we will use ANOVA to partition the different sources of variance and then to estimate their amount (Variance Component).

Statistical Modeling

One Facet Design

4 Sources of Variability– systematic differences among subjects

(object of measurement)

– systematic differences among raters (occasions, items)

– subjects*raters interaction– random error

confounded

Two Facet DesignComponents of Variance

Example of a fully crossed two facet design (Kroll, et. al.)

Seven sources of variance are estimated:– subjects– raters– observations– sxr– sxo– rxo– sxrxo,e

Variance Components

Subjects (s) Observations (o)

Raters (r)

(sxr) (oxr)

(sxo)

(sxrxo)+

Error

TABLE 1 - Variance Components and Percentage of Variation for Measures of Pelvic Tilt (raters=2,observations=5)

Resting Pelvic Tilt Anterior Pelvic Tilt Posterior Pelvic Tilt

Source ofVariation

VC Percent VC Percent VC Percent

Persons 19.956 75.2 47.683 84.8 20.607 72.3

Raters 1.726 6.5 0.000 0.0 2.508 8.8

Observations 0.148 0.6 0.000 0.0 0.011 0.0

P x R 1.671 6.3 1.935 3.4 1.910 6.7

P x O 0.042 0.2 0.972 1.7 1.077 3.8

R x O 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0

P x R x O, E 3.050 11.5 5.646 10.0 2.394 8.4

Abbreviations: P x R = persons by raters; P x O = persons by observations; R x O = raters byobservations; P x R x O, E = persons by raters by observations combined with residual error

TABLE 2 - Variance Components and Percentage of Variation for Modified Schober, Attraction Method,and Lower Abdominal Strength Measures (raters=2, observations=3)

Modified Schober Attraction Method Lower AbdominalStrength

Source VC Percent VC Percent VC Percent

Persons 1.006 67.8 0.360 81.3 105.055 52.9

Raters 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0

Observations 0.008 0.5 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0

P x R 0.181 12.2 0.000 0.0 71.349 36.0

P x O 0.029 2.0 0.083 18.7 3.695 1.9

R x O 0.016 1.1 0.000 0.0 0.757 0.4

P x R x O, E 0.243 16.4 0.000 0.0 17.577 8.9


Relative ErrorFacet of Determination: Subjects


Raters (r)

(sxr) (oxr)

(sxo)

(sxrxo)+

Error

2rel = 2

sr /nr + 2so /no+ 2

sro,e/nrno

Absolute ErrorFacet of Determination: Subjects


Raters (r)

(sxr) (oxr)

(sxo)

(sxrxo)+

Error

2abs = 2

r/nr + 2o /no + 2

sr /nr + 2so /no + 2

or /nonr + 2sro,e /nonr

Generalizability CoefficientsAKA: Reliability Coefficients

Absolute Generalizability Coefficient for Subjects:

2s

= -------------2

s + 2abs

Relative Generalizability Coefficient for Subjects:

2s

2 = -------------2

s + 2rel

TABLE 3 - Variance Components and Percentage of Variation for Right and Left Hamstring FlexibilityMeasures (raters = 2, observations = 3)

Right HamstringFlexibility

Left HamstringFlexibility

Source VC Percent VC Percent

Persons 398.526 93.1 382.639 91.9

Raters 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0

Observations 1.767 0.4 2.123 0.5

P x R 20.656 4.8 24.030 5.8

P x O 0.708 0.2 1.235 0.3

R x O 0.001 0.0 0.707 0.2

P x R x O, E 6.407 1.5 5.727 1.4


TABLE 4 - Variance Component and Percentage of Variation of Abdominal and Trunk MuscleEndurance Methods (raters=2, observation=2)

Abdominal MuscleEndurance

Trunk MuscleEndurance

Source VC Percent VC Percent

Persons 646.177 68.9 1160.656 83.6

Raters 43.936 4.7 0.000 0.0

Observations 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0

P x R 0.000 0.0 21.732 1.6

P x O 15.736 1.7 24.559 1.8

R x O 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0

P x R x O, E 232.117 24.7 181.944 13.1


TABLE 5 - Generalizability of Pelvic Tilt Measures

Resting Pelvic Tilt Anterior Pelvic Tilt Posterior Pelvic Tilt

G-study D-study G-study D-study G-study D-study

nr =no =

25

11

25

11

25

11

ρ2 0.946 0.809 0.967 0.848 0.936 0.793

φ 0.907 0.750 0.967 0.848 0.886 0.723

Abbreviations: nr = number of raters; no = number of observations; ρ2 = generalizability (G) coefficient forrelative decisions; φ = G-coefficient for absolute decisions

TABLE 6 - Generalizability of Trunk Flexibility and Strength Measures

ModifiedSchober

AttractionMethod

LowerAbdominalStrength

RightHamstringFlexibility

LeftHamstringFlexibility

study G D G D G D G D G D

n r =no =

23

11

23

11

23

11

23

11

23

11

ρ2 0.877 0.690 0.928 0.813 0.752 0.531 0.972 0.935 0.966 0.925

φ 0.873 0.678 0.928 0.813 0.724 0.530 0.970 0.931 0.964 0.919


TABLE 7 - Generalizability of Trunk Endurance Measures

Flexion Extension

G-study D-study G-study D-study

nr =no =

22

11

22

11

ρ2 0.908 0.723 0.944 0.836

φ 0.880 0.689 0.944 0.836


RELIABILITY consistency or reproducibility of a test score (or measurement)

Documents

Transcript of RELIABILITY consistency or reproducibility of a test score (or measurement)