Abstract
Measurement is central to empirical research whether observational or experimental. Common to all measurements is the systematic application of numerical value (scale) to a variable or a factor we wish to quantify. Measurement can be applied to physical, biological, or chemical attribute or to more complex factors such as human behaviors, attitudes, physical, social, or psychological characteristics or the combination of several characteristics that denote a concept. There are many reasons for the act of measurement that are relevant to health and social science disciplines: for understanding aetiology of disease or developmental processes, for evaluating programs, for monitoring progress, and for decision-making. Regardless of the specific purpose, we should aspire that our measurement be adequate. In this chapter, we review the properties that determine the adequacy of our measurement (reliability, validity, and sensitivity) and provide examples of statistical methods that are used to quantify these properties. At the concluding section, we provide examples from the physical activity and public health field in the four areas for which precise measurements are necessary illustrating how imprecise or biased scoring procedure can lead to erroneous decisions across the four major purposes of measurement.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2015;22(4):195.
Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Key issues in the statistical analysis of quantitative data in research on health and health services. In: Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis. England: Open University Press McGraw Hill Education Birshire; 2005. p. 497–514.
Brink H. Validity and reliability in qualitative research. Curationis. 1993;16(2):35–8.
Brown WJ, Trost SG, Bauman A, Mummery K, Owen N. Test-retest reliability of four physical activity measures used in population. J Sci Med Sport. 2004;7(2):205–15.
Brownson RC, Jones DA, Pratt M, Blanton C, Heath GW. Measuring physical activity with the behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(11):1913–8.
Busija L, Pausenberger E, Haines TP, Haymes S, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH. Adult measures of general health and health-related quality of life: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-Item (SF-12) Health Surveys, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes study Short Form 36-Item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-Item (SF-12) Health Surveys, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL). Arthritis Care and Research. 2011;63(Supll S11):S383–S4121.
Cerin E, Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Neighborhood environment walkability scale: validity and development of a short form. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(9):1682–91.
Davis RE, Couper MP, Janz NK, Caldwell CH, Resnicow K. Interviewer effects in public health surveys. Health Educ Res. 2009;25(1):14–26.
De Bruin A, Diederiks J, De Witte L, Stevens F, Philipsen H. Assessing the responsiveness of a functional status measure: the Sickness Impact Profile versus the SIP68. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(5):529–40.
Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(8):635–41.
Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(11):897–906.
Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12((4):S142–58.
Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37:830–7.
Fok CCT, Henry D. Increasing the sensitivity of measures to change. Prev Sci. 2015;16(7):978–86.
Gadotti I, Vieira E, Magee D. Importance and clarification of measurement properties in rehabilitation. Braz J Phys Ther. 2006;10(2):137–46.
Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2003;8(4):597–606.
Grant JS, Davis LL. Focus on quantitative methods: Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing and Health. 1997;20:269–74.
Griffiths P, Rafferty AM. Outcome measures (Gerrish K, Lathlean J, Cormack D, editors), 7th ed. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell; 2014.
Harris T, Kerry SM, Limb ES, Victor CR, Iliffe S, Ussher M, … Cook DG. Effect of a primary care walking intervention with and without nurse support on physical activity levels in 45- to 75-year-olds: the Pedometer And Consultation Evaluation (PACE-UP) cluster randomised clinical trial. PLoS Med. 2016;14(1):e1002210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002210.
Heale R, Twycross A. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evid Based Nurs. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129.
Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–68.
Kimberlin CL, Winetrstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65(23):2276.
Last MJ. A dictionary of epidemiology. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324.
Manoj S, Lingyak P. Measurement and evaluation for health educators. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2014.
Merom D, Korycinski R. Measurement of walking. In: Mulley C, Gebel K, Ding D, editors. Walking, vol. 11–39. West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Publishing; 2017.
Merom D, Rissel C, Phongsavan P, Smith BJ, van Kemenade C, Brown W, Bauman A. Promoting walking with pedometers in the community. The step-by-step trial. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(4):290–7.
Merom D, Bowles H, Bauman A. Measuring walking for physical activity surveillance – the effect of prompts and respondents’ interpretation of walking in a leisure time survey. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6:S81–8.
Nunan D. Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619.
Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.
Schmidt S, Bullinger M. Current issues in cross-cultural quality of life instrument development. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(Suppl 2):S29–34.
Stamatakis E, Ekelund U, Wareham NJ. Temporal trends in physical activity in England: the Health Survey for England 1991 to 2004. Prev Med. 2007;45:416–23.
Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
Terwee C, Dekker F, Wiersinga W, Prummel M, Bossuyt P. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(4):349–62.
Thorndike RM. Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2007.
Ursachi G, Horodnic IA, Zait A. How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2015;20:679–86.
Walters SJ. Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation, vol. 84. West Yorkshire, UK: Wiley; 2009.
Winzenberg T, Shaw KS. Screening for physical activity in general practice a test of diagnostic criteria. Aust Fam Physician. 2011;40(1):57–61.
Yu S, Yarnell JW, Sweetnam PM, Murray L. What level of physical activity protects against premature cardiovascular death? The Caerphilly study. Heart. 2003;89(5):502–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Merom, D., John, J.R. (2019). Measurement Issues in Quantitative Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_95
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_95
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5250-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5251-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences