populations and sampling
DESCRIPTION
POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING. Let’s Look at our Example Research Question. Population. Who Do You Want These Study Results to Generalize To??. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING
![Page 2: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Let’s Look at our Example Research Question
How do UF COP pharmacy students who only watch videostreamed lectures differ from those who attend class lectures (and also have access to videostreamed lectures) in terms of learning outcomes?
Population
Who Do You Want These Study Results to Generalize To??
![Page 3: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Population The group you wish to generalize to is
your population. There are two types:
– Theoretical population In our example, this would be all pharmacy students in the US
– Accessible populationIn our example, this would be all COP pharmacy students
![Page 4: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Sampling Target population or the Sampling
frame: All in the accessible population that you can draw your sample from.
Sample: The group of people you select to be in the study. A subgroup of the target population This is not necessarily the group that is
actually in your study.
![Page 5: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
SamplingHow you select your sample:
Sampling Strategies
Probability Sampling
Simple random
sampling
Stratified sampling
Multistage cluster
sampling
Nonprobability sampling
Convenience Sampling
Snowball Sampling
![Page 6: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Sample SizeSelect as large a sample as possible from
your population.There is less potential error that the
sample is different from the population when you use a large sample.
Sampling error: The difference between the sample estimate and the true population value (example: exam score).
![Page 7: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Sample Size Sample size formulas/tables can be used.
Factors that are considered include: Confidence in the statistical test Sampling error
See Appendix B in Creswell (pg 630) Sampling error formula – used to determine
sample size for a survey Power analysis formula – used to determine
group size in an experimental study.
![Page 8: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Back to Our Example
What is our theoretical population? What is our accessible population? What sampling strategy should we
use?
How do UF COP pharmacy students who only watch videostreamed lectures differ from those who attend class lectures (and also have access to videostreamed lectures) in terms of learning outcomes?
![Page 9: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Important ConceptRandom sampling vs random assignment
We have talked about random sampling in this session.
Random sampling is not the same as random assignment. Random sampling is used to select individuals
from the population who will be in the sample. Random assignment is used in an experimental
design to assign individuals to groups.
![Page 10: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
VALIDITY
Lou Ann Cooper, PhDDirector of Program Evaluation and Medical
Education ResearchUniversity of FloridaCollege of Medicine
![Page 11: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
INTRODUCTION Both research and evaluation
include:Design – how the study is conducted Instruments – how data is collectedAnalysis of the data to make inferences
about the effect of a treatment or intervention.
Each of these components can be affected by bias.
![Page 12: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
INTRODUCTION Two types of error in research
Random error due to random variation in participants’ responses at measurement. Inferential statistics, i.e. the p-value and 95% confidence interval, measure random error and allow us to draw conclusions based on research data.
Systematic error or bias.
![Page 13: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
BIAS: DEFINITION Deviations of results (or inferences)
from the truth, or processes leading to such deviation. Any trend in the selection of subjects, data collection, analysis, interpretation, publication or review of data that can lead to conclusions that are systematically different from the truth.
Systematic deviation from the truth that distorts the results of research.
![Page 14: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
BIAS Bias is a form of systematic error that can
affect scientific investigations and distort the measurement process.
Bias is primarily a function of study design and execution, not of results, and should be addressed early in the study planning stages.
Not all bias can be controlled or eliminated; attempting to do so may limit usefulness and generalizability.
Awareness of the presence of bias will allow more meaningful scrutiny of the results and conclusions.
A biased study loses validity and is a common reason for invalid research.
![Page 15: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
POTENTIAL BIASES IN RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
Study Design Issues related to Internal validity Issues related to External validity
Instrument Design Issues related to Construct validity
Data Analysis Issues related to Statistical Conclusion
validity
![Page 16: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
VALIDITYValidity is discussed and applied based on
two complimentary conceptualizations in education and psychology:
Test validity: the degree to which a test measures what it was designed to measure.
Experimental validity: the degree to which a study supports the intended conclusion drawn from the results.
![Page 17: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17Conclusion
Is there a relationship between cause and effect?
Internal Is the relationship causal?
Construct
Can we generalize to other persons, places, times?
Can we generalize to the constructs?
External
FOUR TYPES OF VALIDITY QUESTIONS
![Page 18: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
CONCLUSION VALIDITY Conclusion validity is the degree to
which conclusions we reach about relationships are reasonable, credible or believable.
Relevant for both quantitative and qualitative research studies.
Is there a relationship in your data or not?
![Page 19: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
STATISTICAL CONCLUSION VALIDITY
Basing conclusions on proper use of statistics
Reliability of measures Reliability of implementation Type I Errors and Statistical
Significance Type II Errors and Statistical Power Fallacies of Aggregation
![Page 20: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
STATISTICAL CONCLUSION VALIDITY
Interaction and non-linearity Random irrelevancies in the
experimental setting Random heterogeneity of
respondents
![Page 21: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
VIOLATED ASSUMPTIONS OF STATISTICAL TESTS
The particular assumptions of a statistical test must be met if the results of the analysis are to be meaningfully interpreted.
Levels of measurement. Example: Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA)
![Page 22: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
LEVELS OF MEASUREMENTA hierarchy is implied
in the ides of level of measurement.
At lower levels, assumptions tend to be less restrictive and data analyses tend to be less sensitive.
In general, it is desirable to have a higher level of measurement (interval or ratio) rather than a lower one (nominal or ordinal).
![Page 23: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND LEVEL OF MEASUREMENT
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ASSUMPTIONS Independence of cases. Normality. In each of the groups, the data
are continuous and normally distributed. Equal variances or homoscedasticity. The
variance of data in groups should be the same.
The Kruskal-Wallis test is a nonparametric alternative which does not rely on an assumption of normality.
![Page 24: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
RELIABILITY Measures (tests and scales) of low
reliability may not register true changes.
Reliability of treatment implementation – when treatments/procedures are not administered in a standard fashion, error variance is increased and the chance of obtaining true differences will decrease.
![Page 25: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Reject H0 Retain H0
H0 is TRUE
Type I Error α
Correct Decision
1 - α
H0 is FALSE
Correct Decision
1 - β (Power)
Type II Error β
STATISTICAL DECISIONTR
UE
POPU
LATI
ON
STA
TUS
![Page 26: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
TYPE I ERRORS AND STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
A Type I error is made when a researcher concludes that there is a relationship and there really isn’t (False positive)
If the researcher rejects H0 because p ≤ .05, ask: If data are from a random sample, is
significance level appropriate?Are significance tests applied to a priori
hypotheses?Fishing and the error rate problem
![Page 27: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
TYPE II ERRORS AND STATISTICAL POWER
A Type II error is made when a researcher concludes that there is not a relationship and there really is (False negative)
If the researcher fails to reject H0 because p > .05, ask:Has the researcher used statistical
procedures of adequate power?Does failure to reject H0 merely reflect a
small sample size?
![Page 28: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE POWER AND STATISTICAL INFERENCE
Alpha level Effect size Directional vs. Non-directional test Sample size Unreliable measures Violating the assumptions of a
statistical test
![Page 29: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
RANDOM IRRELEVANCIES Features of the experimental setting
other than the treatment affect scores on the dependent variable
Controlled by choosing settings free from extraneous sources of variation
Measure anticipated sources of variance to include in the statistical analysis
![Page 30: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
RANDOM HETEROGENEITY OF RESPONDENTS
Participants can differ on factors that are correlated with the major dependent variables
Certain respondents will be more affected by the treatment than others
Minimized byBlocking variables and covariatesWithin subjects designs
![Page 31: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE ERROR TERMS
Subjects as own control Homogeneous samples Pretest measures on the same scales used
for measuring the effect Matching on variables correlated with the
post-test Effects of other variables correlated with
the post-test used as covariates Increase the reliability of the dependent
variable measures
![Page 32: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE ERROR TERMS
Estimates of the desired magnitude of a treatment effect should be elicited before research begins
Absolute magnitude of the treatment effect should be presented so readers can infer whether a statistically reliable effect is practically significant.
![Page 33: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
INTERNAL VALIDITY Internal validity has to do with defending
against sources of bias arising in a research design.
To what degree is the study designed such that we can infer that the educational intervention caused the measured effect.
An internally valid study will minimize the influence of extraneous variables.
Example: Did participation in a series of Webinars on TB in children change the practice of physicans?
![Page 34: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
THREATS TO
INTERNAL VALIDITY
HISTORY
MATURATION
TESTING
INSTRUMENTATION
STATISTICALREGRESSION
SELECTION
INTERACTIONSWITH
SELECTION
MORTALITY
![Page 35: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
INTERNAL VALIDITY: THREATS IN SINGLE GROUP REPEATED MEASURES DESIGNS History Maturation Testing Instrumentation Mortality Regression
![Page 36: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY HISTORY The observed effects may be due to or be
confounded with nontreatment events occurring between the pretest and the post-test
History is a threat to conclusions drawn from longitudinal studies
Greater time period between measurements = more risk of a history effect
History is not a threat in cross sectional designs conducted at one point in time
![Page 37: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY MATURATION Invalid inferences may be made when
the maturation of participants between measurements has an effect and this maturation is not the research interest.
Internal (physical or psychological) changes in participants unrelated to the independent variable – older, wiser, stronger, more experienced.
![Page 38: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY TESTING Reactivity as a result of testing The effects of taking a test on the
outcomes of a second testPractice Learning
Improved scores on the second administration of a test can be expected even in the absence of intervention due to familiarity
![Page 39: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY INSTRUMENTATION Changes in instruments, observers or
scorers which may produce changes in outcomes
Observers/raters, through experience, become more adept at their task
Ceiling and floor effects Longitudinal studies
![Page 40: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY STATISTICAL REGRESSION Test-retest scores tend to drift
systematically to the mean rather than remain stable or become more extreme
Regression effects may obscure treatment effects or developmental changes
Most problematic when participants are selected because they are extreme on the classification variable of interest
![Page 41: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY MORTALITY Differences in drop-out rates/attrition
across conditions of the experiment Makes “before” and “after” samples
not comparable This selection artifact may become
operative in spite of random assignment
Major threat in longitudinal studies
![Page 42: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
INTERNAL VALIDITY: MULTIPLE GROUP THREATS
Selection Interactions with Selection
Selection-HistorySelection-MaturationSelection-TestingSelection-InstrumentationSelection-MortalitySelection-Regression
![Page 43: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
THREATS IN DESIGNS WITH GROUPS: SOCIAL INTERACTION THREATS
Compensatory equalization of treatments
Compensatory rivalryResentful demoralizationTreatment imitation or diffusion
Unintended treatments
![Page 44: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
EXTERNAL VALIDITY The extent to which the results of a
study can be generalizedPopulation validity – generalizations
related to other groups of peopleEcological validity – generalizations
related to other settings, times, contexts, etc.
![Page 45: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
THREATS TO EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Pre-test treatment interaction Multiple treatment interference Interaction of selection and treatment Interaction of setting and treatment Interaction of history and treatment Experimenter effects
![Page 46: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
THREATS TO EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Reactive arrangementsArtificial environmentHawthorne effect
◊ Halo effect◊ John Henry effect
Placebo effectParticipant-researcher interaction Novelty effect
![Page 47: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
SELECTING A RESEARCH DESIGN
Lou Ann Cooper, PhDDirector of Program Evaluation and Medical
Education ResearchUniversity of FloridaCollege of Medicine
![Page 48: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
What If….We gave 150 pharmacy students (all are distance campus) access to streaming video and then measured their performance on a written exam (measures achievement of learning outcomes)…..
![Page 49: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
49
PRE-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
One Group Posttest DesignX O
X = Implementation of the treatmentO = Measurement of the participants in
the experimental group
Also referred to as ‘One Shot Case Study’
![Page 50: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
What If….We gave 150 pharmacy students (all are distance campus) access to streaming video and then measured their performance on a written exam (measures achievement of learning outcomes)…..
For Discussion:What are the treats to validity?
![Page 51: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
SOURCES OF INVALIDITY InternalHistory –Maturation –TestingInstrumentationRegressionMortality –Selection –Selection Interactions
ExternalInteraction of
Testing and X
Interaction of Selection and X
–
Reactive Arrangements
Multiple X Interference
![Page 52: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
What If….We gave 150 pharmacy students (all are distance campus) access to streaming video and then measured their performance on a written exam (measures achievement of learning outcomes)…..
![Page 53: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
PRE-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNSComparison Group Posttest Design
X O - - - - - - - O
Static Group Comparison Ex post facto research No pretest observations
![Page 54: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
What If….We gave 150 pharmacy students (all are distance campus) access to streaming video and then measured their performance on a written exam (measures achievement of learning outcomes)…..
For Discussion:What if we compare test scores for these students with last year’s scores (assume last year had no streaming video)?
![Page 55: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
SOURCES OF INVALIDITY InternalHistory +Maturation ?Testing +Instrumentation +Regression +Mortality –Selection –Selection Interactions
–
ExternalInteraction of
Testing and X
Interaction of Selection and X
–
Reactive Arrangements
Multiple X Interference
![Page 56: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
56
What If….We gave 150 pharmacy students (all are distance campus) access to streaming video and measured their performance on a written exam both before and after the intervention (measures achievement of learning outcomes)…..
![Page 57: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
57
PRE-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNSOne Group Pretest/Posttest Design
O X O
Not a true experiment Because participants serve as
their own control, results may be less biased
![Page 58: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
58
What If….We gave 150 pharmacy students (all are distance campus) access to streaming video and measured their performance on a written exam both before and after the intervention (measures achievement of learning outcomes)…..
For Discussion:What are the threats to validity (What are the plausible hypotheses that could explain any difference)??
![Page 59: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
59
SOURCES OF INVALIDITY InternalHistory –Maturation –Testing –Instrumentation –Regression ?Mortality +Selection +Selection Interactions
–
ExternalInteraction of
Testing and X–
Interaction of Selection and X
–
Reactive Arrangements
?
Multiple X Interference
![Page 60: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
60
What If….We could randomize all 300 pharmacy students to the following groups:Group 1: access only streaming videoGroup 2:attend lecturesFor each group, administer both a pre-test and a post-test
![Page 61: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
61
TRUE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNSPretest/Posttest Design with Control Group
and Random Assignment
R O X O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -R O O
Measurement of pre-existing differences Controls most threats to internal validity
![Page 62: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
62
What If….We could randomize all 300 pharmacy students to the following groups:Group 1: access only streaming videoGroup 2:attend lectures
For each group, administer both a pre-test and a post-test
For Discussion:What are the threats to validity (What are the plausible hypotheses that could explain any difference)??
![Page 63: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
63
SOURCES OF INVALIDITY InternalHistory +Maturation +Testing +Instrumentation +Regression +Mortality +Selection +Selection Interactions
+
ExternalInteraction of
Testing and X–
Interaction of Selection and X
?
Reactive Arrangements
?
Multiple X Interference
![Page 64: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
64
What If….We could randomize all 300 pharmacy students to the following groups:
Group 1: access only streaming video and post-testGroup 2: attend lectures and post-test
![Page 65: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
65
TRUE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNSPosttest Only Control Group
R X O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R O
![Page 66: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
66
What If….We could randomize all 300 pharmacy students to the following groups:
Group 1: access only streaming video and post-testGroup 2: attend lectures and post-test
For Discussion:What have we lost by not using a pre-test? (as compared to the experimental randomized pre-test and post-test design)
![Page 67: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
67
SOURCES OF INVALIDITY InternalHistory +Maturation +Testing +Instrumentation +Regression +Mortality +Selection +Selection Interactions
+
ExternalInteraction of
Testing and X+
Interaction of Selection and X
?
Reactive Arrangements
?
Multiple X Interference
![Page 68: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
68
What If….We could randomize all 300 pharmacy students to the following groups:Group 1: pre-test, access only streaming video, and
post-testGroup 2: pre-test, attend lectures, and post-testGroup 3: access only streaming video and post-test
onlyGroup 4: attend lectures and post-test only
![Page 69: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
69
TRUE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNSSolomon Four Group Comparison
R O X O
R O O
R X O
R O
![Page 70: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
70
What If….We could randomize all 300 pharmacy students to the following groups:Group 1: pre-test, access only streaming video, and post-testGroup 2: pre-test, attend lectures, and post-testGroup 3: access only streaming video and post-test onlyGroup 4: attend lectures and post-test only
For Discussion:What have we gained by having 4 groups (esp group 3 and 4)?
![Page 71: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
71
What If….It is NOT feasible to use randomization. What if we were to have the following groups:Group 1 (all distant campuses): access only streaming videoGroup 2 (GNV campus):attend lectures
For each group, administer both a pre-test and a post-test
![Page 72: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
72
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
Nonequivalent Control Group
O X O
O O
Pre-existing differences can be measured Controls some threats to validity
![Page 73: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
73
What If….It is NOT feasible to use randomization. What if we were to have the following groups:Group 1 (all distant campuses): access only streaming videoGroup 2 (GNV campus):attend lectures
For each group, administer both a pre-test and a post-test
For Discussion:What have we “lost” by not randomizing?
![Page 74: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
74
SOURCES OF INVALIDITY InternalHistory –Maturation –TestingInstrumentationRegressionMortality –Selection –Selection Interactions
ExternalInteraction of
Testing and X
Interaction of Selection and X
–
Reactive Arrangements
Multiple X Interference
![Page 75: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
75
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
Time Series
O O O O X O O O O
![Page 76: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
76
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNSCounterbalanced Design
O X1 O X2 O X3 O X3 O X1 O X2O X2 O X3 O X1
![Page 77: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
MEASURMENT VALIDITY:SOURCES OF EVIDENCE
![Page 78: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
78
CLASSIC VIEW OF TEST VALIDITYTraditional triarchic view of validity Content Criterion
ConcurrentPredictive
Construct Tests were described as “valid” or
“invalid” Reliability was considered a separate test
trait
![Page 79: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
79
MODERN VIEW OF VALIDITY Scientific evidence needed to support
test score interpretationStandards for Educational &
Psychological Testing (1999)Cronbach, Messick, Kane
Some theory, key concepts, examples Reliability as part of validity
![Page 80: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
80
VALIDITY: DEFINITIONS“A proposition deserves some degree of trust only when it has survived serious attempts to falsify it.” (Cronbach, 1980)
According to the Standards, validity refers to “the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences made from test scores.”
“Validity is an integrative summary.” (Messick, 1995)
“Validation is the process of building an argument supporting interpretation of test scores.” (Kane, 1992)
![Page 81: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
81
WHAT IS A CONSTRUCT? Constructs are psychological attributes,
hypothetical concepts A defensible construct has
A theoretical basis Clear operational definitions involving
measurable indicators Demonstrated relationships to other constructs
or observable phenomena A construct should be differentiated from
related theoretical constructs as well as from methodological irrelevancies
![Page 82: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
82
THREATS TO CONSTRUCT VALIDITY (Cook & Campbell)
Inadequate preoperational explication of constructs
Mono-operation bias Mono-method bias Interaction of different treatments Interaction of testing and treatment Restricted generalizability across
constructs
![Page 83: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
83
THREATS TO CONSTRUCT VALIDITY (Cook & Campbell)
Confounding constructs Confounding levels of constructs Hypothesis guessing within
experimental conditions Evaluation apprehension Researcher expectancies
![Page 84: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
84
SOURCES OF VALIDITY EVIDENCE1. Test Content
Task RepresentationConstruct Domain
2. Response Process – Item Psychometrics3. Internal Structure – Test Psychometrics4. Relationships with Other Variables – Correlations
Test-Criterion RelationshipsConvergent and Divergent Data
5. Consequences of Testing – Social context
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 1999
![Page 85: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
85
ASPECTS OF VALIDITY: CONTENT Content validity refers to how well
elements of the test or scale relate to the content domain. Content relevance. Content representativeness. Content coverage.
Systematic analysis of what the test is intended to measure. Technical quality. Construct irrelevant variance
![Page 86: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
86
SOURCES OF VALIDITY EVIDENCE:TEST CONTENT
Detailed understanding of the content sampled by the instrument and its relationship to content domain
Content-related evidence is often established during the planning stages of an assessment or scale.
Content-related validity studies Exact sampling plan, table of specifications, blueprint Representativeness of items/prompts →Domain Appropriate content for instructional objectives
◊ Cognitive level of items◊ Match to instructional objectives
Review by panel of experts. Content expertise of item/prompt writers Expertise of content reviewers Quality of items/prompts, sensitivity review
![Page 87: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
87
ASPECTS OF VALIDITY: RESPONSE PROCESSES
Emphasis is on the role of theory. Tasks sample domain processes as
well as content. Accuracy in combining scores from
different item formats or subscales. Quality control – scanning,
assignment of grades, score reports.
![Page 88: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
88
SOURCES OF VALIDITY EVIDENCE:RESPONSE PROCESSESFit of student responses to hypothesized
construct? Basic quality control information – accuracy of
item responses, recording, data handling, scoring Statistical evidence that items/tasks measure the
intended construct Achievement items measure intended content and not
other content Ability items predict targeted achievement outcome Ability items fail to predict a non-related ability or
achievement outcome
![Page 89: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
89
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: RESPONSE PROCESSES
Debrief examinees regarding solution processes.
“Think-aloud” during pilot testing. Subscore/subscale analyses- i.e.,
correlation patterns among part scores.
Accurate and understandable interpretations of scores for examinees.
![Page 90: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
90
SOURCES OF VALIDITY EVIDENCE:INTERNAL STRUCTURE
Statistical evidence of the hypothesized relationship between test item scores and the constructReliability
Test scale reliability Rater reliability Generalizability
Item analysis data Item difficulty and discrimination MCQ option function analysis Inter-item correlations
Scale factor structure Dimensionality studies Differential item functioning (DIF) studies
![Page 91: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
91
ASPECTS OF VALIDITY: EXTERNAL
Can the test results be evaluated by objective criteria?
Correlations with other relevant variablesTest-criterion correlations Concurrent or predictive
MTMM matrix Convergent correlations Divergent (discriminant) correlations
![Page 92: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
92
SOURCES OF VALIDITY EVIDENCE:RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER VARIABLES
Statistical evidence of the hypothesized relationship between test scores and the construct
Criterion-related validity studiesCorrelations between test scores/subscores
and other measuresConvergent-Divergent studiesMTMM
![Page 93: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
93
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER VARIABLES
Predictive validity: Variation of concurrent validity where the criterion is in the future.
Classic example is to determine whether students who score high on an admissions test such as the MCAT earn higher preclinical GPAs?
![Page 94: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
94
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER VARIABLES
Convergent validity: Assessed by the correlation among items which make up the scale (internal consistency), by the correlation of a the given scale with measures of the same construct using instruments proposed by other researchers, and by the correlation of relationships involving the given scale across samples or across methods.
![Page 95: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
95
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER VARIABLES
Criterion (concurrent) validity: correlation between scale or instrument measurement items and known accepted standard measures or criteria.
Do the proposed measures for a given concept exhibit generally the same direction and magnitude of correlation with other variables as measures of that concept already accepted in this area of research?
![Page 96: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
96
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER VARIABLES
Divergent (discriminant) validity: The indicators of different constructs should not be highly correlated as to lead us to conclude that they measure the same thing. This would happen is there is definitional overlap between two constructs
![Page 97: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
97
MULTI-TRAIT MULTI-METHOD MTMM MATRIX Mono-method and/or mono-method
biases – use of a single data gathering method or a single indicator for a concept may result in bias
Multi-trait/Multi-method validation uses multiple indicators per concept and gathers data for each indicator by multiple methods or multiple sources.
![Page 98: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
98
MULTI-TRAIT MULTI-METHOD MTMM MATRIX
ActRefl SensInt VisVerb SeqGlob ExtInt SensInt ThinkFeel JudPerActRefl 0.75SensInt -0.15 0.81VisVerb 0.03 0.18 0.60
SeqGlob -0.32 -0.48 -0.12 0.81ExtInt 0.60 -0.11 0.05 -0.43 0.54
SensInt -0.22 0.69 -0.02 0.54 -0.18 0.69ThinkFeel 0.02 -0.09 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.19
JudPer -0.27 0.46 -0.18 0.39 -0.33 0.51 -0.01 0.50
Reliability diagonal (montrait-monomethod)Heterotrait-monomethodValidity diagonalHeterotrait-heteromethod
ILS LSTI
ILS
LSTI
Validity of index of learning styles scores: multitrait−multimethod comparison with three cognitive learning style instruments. Cook DA; Smith AJ. Medical Education, 2006; 40: 900-907 ILS = Index of Learning StylesLSTI = Learning Style Type Indicator
Active-reflectiveSensing-intuitiveVisual- verbalSequential-globalExtrovert-introvertSensing-intuitionThinking-feelingJudging- perceiving
![Page 99: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
99
MULTI-TRAIT MULTI-METHOD MTMM MATRIX
ActRefl SensInt VisVerb SeqGlob ExtInt SensInt ThinkFeel JudPerActRefl 0.75SensInt -0.15 0.81VisVerb 0.03 0.18 0.60
SeqGlob -0.32 -0.48 -0.12 0.81ExtInt 0.60 -0.11 0.05 -0.43 0.54
SensInt -0.22 0.69 -0.02 0.54 -0.18 0.69ThinkFeel 0.02 -0.09 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.19
JudPer -0.27 0.46 -0.18 0.39 -0.33 0.51 -0.01 0.50
Reliability diagonal (montrait-monomethod)Heterotrait-monomethodValidity diagonalHeterotrait-heteromethod
ILS LSTI
ILS
LSTI
Validity of index of learning styles scores: multitrait−multimethod comparison with three cognitive learning style instruments. Cook DA; Smith AJ. Medical Education, 2006; 40: 900-907 ILS = Index of Learning StylesLSTI = Learning Style Type Indicator
![Page 100: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
100
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
Neither is a property of a test or scale. Reliability is important validity evidence. Without reliability, there can be no validity.
Reliability is necessary, but not sufficient for validity.
Purpose of an instrument dictates what type of reliability is important and the sources of validity evidence necessary to support the desired inferences.
![Page 101: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
101
SOURCES OF VALIDITY EVIDENCE:CONSEQUENCES
Evidence of the effects of tests on students,instruction, schools, society Consequential validity
Social consequences of assessment Effects of passing-failing tests
Economic costs of failure Costs to society of false positive/false negative
decisions Effects of tests on instruction/learning
Intended vs. unintended
![Page 102: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
RELIABILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION
Lou Ann Cooper, PhDDirector of Program Evaluation and Medical
Education ResearchUniversity of FloridaCollege of Medicine
![Page 103: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
103
TYPES OF RELIABILITYDifferent types of assessments require different kinds of reliability Written MCQ/Likert-scale items
Scale reliability Internal consistency
Written Constructed Response and Essays Inter-rater agreementGeneralizability theory
![Page 104: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
104
TYPES OF RELIABILITY Oral Exams
Rater reliability Generalizability Theory
Observational Assessments Rater reliability Inter-rater agreement Generalizability Theory
Performance Exams (OSCEs) Rater reliability Generalizability Theory
![Page 105: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
105
ROUGH GUIDELINES FOR RELIABILITY The higher the better! Depends on purpose of test
Very high-stakes: > 0.90 (Licensure exams)
Moderate stakes: at least ~ 0.75 (Classroom test, Medical school OSCE)
Low stakes: > 0.60 (Quiz, test for feedback only)
![Page 106: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
106
INCREASING RELIABILITY Written tests
Use objectively scored formats At least 35-40 MCQs MCQs that differentiate between high and low
scorers Performance exams
At least 7-12 cases Well trained standardized patients and/or other
raters Monitoring and quality control
Observational Exams Many independent raters (7-11) Standard checklists/rating scales Timely ratings
![Page 107: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
107
SCALE DEVELOPMENT1. Identify the primary purpose for which
scores will be used. Validity is the most important
consideration. Validity is not a property of an instrument.
Inferences to be made determine the type of items you will write.2. Specify the important aspects of the
construct to be measured.
![Page 108: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
108
SCALE DEVELOPMENT 3. Initial pool of items.4. Expert review (content
validity)5. Preliminary item
‘tryout’6. Statistical properties
of the items Item analysis Reliability estimate Dimensionality
![Page 109: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
109
ITEM ANALYSIS Item ‘difficulty’ – item variance,
frequencies Inter-item
covariances/correlations Item discrimination – an item that
discriminates well correlates with the total score.
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha Factor Analysis –
Multidemensional Scaling IRT Structural aspect of validity.
![Page 110: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
110
NEED TO EVALUATE SCALE Jarvis & Petty (1996) Hypothesis: Individuals differ in the
extent to which they engage in evaluative responding.
Subjects were undergraduate psychology students.
Comprehensive reliability and validity studies.
Concluded the scale was ‘unidimensional’.
![Page 111: POPULATIONS AND SAMPLING](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070422/56816554550346895dd7d1c3/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
111
REFERENCESCook, T.D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings.
Downing, S. M. Threats to the validity of locally developed multiple-choice tests in medical education: construct-irrelevant variance and construct underrepresentation. Adv in Health Sci Educ 2002; 7:235-241.
Downing, S. M. Validity: On the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003; 37:830-837.
Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In Educational Measurement 3rd Ed. R. L. Linn, Ed.
Downing, S. M. Reliability: On the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ, 2004; 38:1006-1012.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net