여성건강간호학회지 (Women's Health Nursing)

  • 제27권2호
  • /
  • Pages.69-74
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 3022-7666(pISSN)
  • /
  • 3022-8247(eISSN)
한국여성건강간호학회 (Korean Society of Women Health Nursing)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

측정도구의 심리계량적 속성 2: 구조타당도, 내적일관성 및 교차문화타당도/측정동일성

Psychometric properties of an instrument 2: structural validity, internal consistency, and cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance

  • 투고 : 2021.04.27
  • 심사 : 2021.05.18
  • 발행 : 2021.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

측정도구의 구조타당도는 내용타당도 이후 가장 먼저 수행되어야 할 측정 속성이다. 이를 위해 국내 간호학에서는 주로 CFA를 사용하는데, CFA로 얻을 수 없는 정보들을 제시하는 IRT/라쉬 분석도 같이 적용해 볼 것을 추천한다. 구조타당도 이외에 내적일관성 및 교차문화타당도/측정동일성 또한 측정도구의 내적구조를 확인하기 위한 것이다. 국내 간호학 측정도구 연구에서 교차문화타당도/측정동일성에 대한 검증은 거의 찾아볼 수 없는 상황이다. 따라서 앞으로는 이에 대한 평가도 시행되기를 바란다.

Structural validity, internal consistency, and cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance are psychometric properties of the internal structure of an instrument. In psychometric studies published in Korean nursing journals, structural validity has mainly been assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance has rarely been evaluated. It is recommended for Korean nursing researchers to evaluate the internal structure of instruments using a greater variety of methods, such as item response theory, Rasch analysis, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, and differential item functioning.

키워드

과제정보

This research was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT) (NRF-2021R1A2B01001603). The funder did not play any role in the conduct or publication of the study.

참고문헌

  1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
  2. de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. London: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 338.
  3. Polit DF, Yang FM. Measurement and the measurement of change. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2016. p. 350.
  4. Lee EH, Lee YW, Lee KW, Nam M, Kim SH. A new comprehensive diabetes health literacy scale: development and psychometric evaluation. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;88:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.002
  5. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge; 2016. p. 86-89.
  6. Mardia KV. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika. 1970;57(3):519-530. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334770
  7. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  8. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(2):130-149. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
  9. Lee EH, van der Bijl J, Shortridge-Baggett LM, Han SJ, Moon SH. Psychometric properties of the diabetes management self-efficacy scale in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Endocrinol. 2015;2015:780701. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/780701
  10. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. London: Pearson; 2014. p. 600-638.
  11. Lee EH, Moon SH, Cho MS, Park ES, Kim SY, Han JS, et al. The 21-item and 12-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: psychometric evaluation in a Korean population. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2019;13(1):30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2018.11.006
  12. Chen H, Nakatani H, Liu T, Zhao H, Xie D. The core knowledge and skills of nursing competency regarding mealtime assistance for hemiplegic patients in China. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2020;14(2):129-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2020.04.005
  13. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  14. Lee EH, Kang EH, Kang HJ. Evaluation of studies on the measurement properties of self-reported instruments. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2020;14(5):267-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2020.11.004
  15. Zhang J, Zhou X, Wang H, Luo Y, Li W. Development and validation of humanistic practice ability of nursing scale. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2021;S1976-1317(21)00001-3:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2020.12
  16. Furr RM. Psychometrics: an introduction. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2018. p. 401-4710.
  17. Kuder GF, Richardson MW. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika. 1937;2(3):151-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288391
  18. Linacre JM. Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program user's guide. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com; 2019.
  19. Yu DS, De Maria M, Barbaranelli C, Vellone E, Matarese M, Ausili D, et al. Cross-cultural applicability of the Self-Care Self-Efficacy Scale in a multi-national study. J Adv Nurs. 2021;77(2):681-692. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14617
  20. Gomez R, Summers M, Summers A, Wolf A, Summers JJ. Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21: Factor structure and test-retest invariance, and temporal stability and uniqueness of latent factors in older adults. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2014;36(2):308-317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9391-0
  21. Lindkvist EB, Kristensen LJ, Sildorf SM, Kreiner S, Svensson J, Mose AH, et al. A Danish version of self-efficacy in diabetes self-management: a valid and reliable questionnaire affected by age and sex. Pediatr Diabetes. 2018;19(3):544-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/pedi.12601

피인용 문헌

  1. Year in review and appreciation for 2021 reviewers vol.27, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2021.12.13