The Validity/Reliability of Occupational Performance Measurement: A Synthesis of Research Using the Validity Generalization Method
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In this study, we used the Validity Generalization method (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter, 1977) to synthesize findings from 18 studies investigating the validity/reliability of a variety of occupational performance assessments. Our objectives were to determine: 1) an overall estimate of the validity/reliability of occupational performance measurement scores; and 2) generalizability of the validity/reliability from research to clinical settings after correction for some attenuating statistical artifacts. To achieve the above two objectives, we computed weighted mean validity/reliability coefficients of studies validating a variety of occupational performance measurement instruments; determined the attenuation of variability of the validity/reliability coefficients by sampling and test criterion measurement reliability errors; and calculated the proportion of the variance of the validity/reliability coefficients accounted for by the attenuating factors. Our sample was comprised of 18 studies in which test-retest, inter-rater, alternate measure, and predictive reliability estimates of occupational performance scores were investigated. The instruments generating scores in the studies included: the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM); Occupational Performance History Interview (OPHI-II); Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS); Role Checklist (RC); Assessment of Living Skills and Resources (ALSAR); Australian Therapy Outcome Measures (AusTOMs); Functional Independence Measure (FIM); and Hessel Analogical Reasoning Test (HART) among others. Occupational Performance assessment scores based on self-report were found to have a higher corrected weighted mean validity/reliability coefficient than is typical for instruments in social science research. This was particularly significant in the context of the emphasis on client-centeredness in the current occupational therapy paradigm which encourages collaboration with clients in the assessment and intervention process. When observed variance was corrected for attenuation by sampling and test criterion reliability errors, less than 75% of the variance recommended by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) remained. Our findings indicated that assessment scores based on self-report instruments may be the most reliable/valid. It is not clear whether such validity/reliability can be assumed in clinical conditions that differ from research circumstances. Further meta-analysis is indicated to determine more conclusively such generalizability of validity/reliability of occupational performance assessments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,036 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle