1. 1 COMM 301: Empirical Research in Communication Kwan M Lee Lect4_1

2. 2 Building good measures: Measurement validity and reliability Things to know by the end of the lecture: –What is external validity vs. internal validity of a study? –What is measurement validity and reliability? –How do we assess them? –What are the various aspects of measurement validity? –Relationship between measurement validity and reliability

3. 3 Internal vs. External Validity of a Study We will talk more about this in Chap. 7 External validity –Is it generalizable? –Sampling and replication Internal validity –Is it accurate? –Can be influenced by measurement validity, measurement reliability, and other factors (E.g., history; maturation; sensitization; experiment demand;…..) Today’s lecture focuses on measurement validity and reliability.

4. 4 Measurement validity & reliability Measurement validity: –Does the measure give accurate results? Measurement validity is important part of internal validity –Internal validity: the accuracy of an investigation’s results as influenced by the planning, design, and conduct of the investigation. Measurement reliability: –Does the measure give constant/reliable results?

5. 5 Measurement Reliability Reliability: the extent to which a measurement gives consistent results –Across time (test-retest) –Across items within a questionnaire (split half; alpha) or between questionnaires (parallel forms) –Across observers (intercorder reliability) Reliability is a must for Measurement Validity (and also for Internal Validity) but it does not guarantee validity. Tests for reliability –test retest (self-report); parallel forms (self-report); split half (self-report) –Don’t need to pay attention to the above three –Cronbach’s alpha (self-report)  this is what most researchers use! –intercoder reliability (observational)

6. 6 Reliability - test retest technique Test retest technique –measurement instrument administered more than once to same group of respondents –results across each administration compared –similarity analyzed with correlation coefficient 0 = no similarity, no relationship 1 = perfect similarity, perfect relationship Potential problems –test sensitization (E.g., remembering) –Maturation (e.g., actual changes)

7. 7 Reliability - parallel forms technique Parallel forms technique –addresses test sensitization –use two separate but parallel measures (e.g. two different questionnaires measuring the same construct) given to same set of respondents –no concern for time span –Drawback: effort to create a second instrument

8. 8 Reliability - split half technique Split half technique –single instrument, multiple parallel measures for each construct –similar to parallel form technique, except all measurement items are on the same instrument –Advantage: efficient, assess reliability when we collect data –Disadvantage: effort to create parallel measures

9. 9 Reliability - intercoder reliability Intercoder reliability (observational) –in observing and coding, we use more than one coder –each coder’s observation and coding compared –if coding is correlated, then there is intercoder reliability

10. 10 Reliability – coefficient judgment In general, if correlation coefficients or Cronbach’s alpha is… –0 = no correlation, no reliability –1 = perfect positive correlation – -1 = perfect negative correlation –0.8 is acceptable threshold (well, can be somewhat lower than this)

11. 11 What else affects measurement validity? Reliability itself not enough to ensure measurement validity, need to look at other validity issues –content (or face) validity –predictive validity –concurrent validity –construct validity

12. 12 Validity - content validity Content validity (or Face validity) –whether measurement reflects the characteristics of the construct measured –does it appear to measure what it is designed to measure –How to assess content validity? Panel of experts

13. 13 Validity - concurrent validity Concurrent validity –how well a measurement instrument compares with a previously validated one –How to assess concurrent validity? take the instrument in question, and also the already validated instrument administer both to same group of respondents compare the two sets of results the result should be similar

14. 14 Validity - predictive validity Predictive validity –measurement’s ability to predict the expected outcomes Example: SAT Score (predictor for success in a higher education) –How to assess predictive validity? Examine the relationship between the measurement and the later outcome –E.g., SAT and College GPA –Key is to determine the appropriate outcome measure

15. 15 Validity - construct validity Construct validity –measurement is consistent with its theoretical framework that it evolved from –Various theoretical relationships between a variable measured by a measurement under consideration and the other variables should be observed. –E.g., aggression measure and its theoretical relationships to gender, pro-social activities, etc...

16. 16 Validity - construct validity To assess construct validity –One solution is the “known groups method theory is used to generate/discover 2 groups of subjects, one group with high level of construct, another with low level of the construct measurement instrument in question administered to both groups results compared if instrument has construct validity, should clearly tell both groups apart Example –Create low vs high anxiety groups  Measure  Compare –Check theoretical relationships with other variables

17. 17 Validity - summary Judgment based – Face validity Criterion based – Predictive validity; Concurrent validity Theory based – Construct validity

18. 18 Reliability and validity: Exercise Exercise: Assume that 50 is a true score. Each mark is a test score for a session. Describe test A, B, and C.

19. 19 One more exercise for measurement validity and reliability Come up with your own example!

20. 20 Reliability and validity What does this mean for your research project now and future? –Build reliable and valid measures –If possible, use established measures that have been tested for reliability –Think about four types of measurement validity (e.g., content validity, predictive validity,…)