DOCSLIB.ORG

An Examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory's Nomological Network: a Meta-Analytic Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory's Nomological Network: a Meta-Analytic Review See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221977764 An Examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory's Nomological Network: A Meta-Analytic Review ARTICLE in PERSONALITY DISORDERS: THEORY, RESEARCH, AND TREATMENT · AUGUST 2011 Impact Factor: 3.54 · DOI: 10.1037/a0024567 · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 66 146 2 AUTHORS: Joshua D Miller University of Georgia 155 PUBLICATIONS 4,025 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Donald R Lynam Purdue University 159 PUBLICATIONS 9,778 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Joshua D Miller Retrieved on: 05 October 2015 Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment © 2011 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 3, No. 3, 305–326 1949-2715/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0024567 FEATURED ARTICLE An Examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory’s Nomological Network: A Meta-Analytic Review Joshua D. Miller Donald R. Lynam University of Georgia Purdue University Since its publication, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory and its revision (Lilien- feld & Andrews, 1996; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) have become increasingly popular such that it is now among the most frequently used self-report inventories for the assessment of psychopathy. The current meta-analysis examined the relations between the two PPI factors (factor 1: Fearless Dominance; factor 2: Self-Centered Impulsivity), as well as their relations with other validated measures of psychopathy, internalizing and externalizing forms of psychopathology, general personality traits, and antisocial personality disorder symptoms. Across 61 samples reported in 49 publications, we found support for the convergent and criterion validity of both PPI factor 2 and the PPI total score. Much weaker validation was found for PPI factor 1, which manifested limited convergent validity and a pattern of correlations with central criterion variables that was inconsistent with many conceptualizations of psychopathy. Keywords: psychopathy, assessment, fearless dominance, self-centered impulsivity Psychopathy is one of the most frequently umented the relation between psychopathy empirically examined and well-validated per- and a vast array of externalizing behaviors sonality disorders (PDs), despite not being such as crime and aggression in adults (e.g., officially included in the most recent diagnos- Porter, Birt, & Boer, 2001) and juveniles tic taxonomy, the Diagnostic and Statistical (e.g., Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004), Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV–TR; criminal recidivism (e.g., Walters, Knight, APA, 2000). Influenced by a number of prom- Grann, & Dahle, 2008), substance use (e.g., inent theorists including Cleckley (1941/ Gustavson et al., 2007; Kennealy, Hicks, & 1988), Hare (e.g., 1991), Karpman (1941) and Patrick, 2007), and sexual offending Lykken (1957, 1995), psychopathy is thought (Caldwell, Ziemke, & Vitacco, 2008). to comprise personality traits such as manip- The most frequently used and empirically ulativeness, egocentricity, callousness, a lack validated assessment tool for psychopathy is the of remorse or empathy, impulsivity and irre- Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1991) and sponsibility, as well as a pervasive and early its revision (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), particularly involvement in criminal behavior (cf., Cooke when assessing psychopathy among incarcer- & Michie, 2001). Numerous studies have doc- ated offenders. Until recently (see Cooke & Michie, 2001), PCL/PCL-R psychopathy was thought to be composed of two factors that were This article was published Online First August 8, 2011. correlated at approximately .50 (Hare, 1991). Joshua D. Miller, Department of Psychology, University Factor 1 (F1) is related to the interpersonal and of Georgia, Athens; Donald R. Lynam, Department of Psy- affective components of psychopathy (e.g., chological Sciences, Purdue University. Both authors contributed equally to this work. grandiosity, lying, callousness), whereas fac- Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- tor 2 (F2) comprises traits and behaviors indic- dressed to Joshua D. Miller, Department of Psychology, ative of “social deviance” (e.g., juvenile delin- University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602–3013; or Donald quency, impulsivity; Hare, 1991). The PCL/ R. Lynam, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906. E-mail: PCL-R factors often manifest differential [email protected] or [email protected] patterns of relations with external criteria. For 305 306 MILLER AND LYNAM instance, F1 has been unrelated or weakly neg- Fitzpatrick, 1995), and the Antisocial Process atively associated with psychological distress Screening Device (APSD: Frick & Hare, 2001) and anxiety (e.g., Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, were designed to assess psychopathy from a 1989; Schmitt & Newman, 1999) and positively PCL-R perspective, and thus typically manifest associated with social dominance (e.g., Harpur a factor structure that is thought to be somewhat et al., 1989), narcissism and narcissistic PD consistent with the PCL-R. Alternatively, the (e.g., Blackburn & Coid, 1998; Hildebrand & Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; and de Ruiter, 2004), and emotional detachment revised, [PPI-R] Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; (e.g., Patrick, Bradley, & Lang, 1993), whereas Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) was created by F2 has been positively associated with violence, including items derived from a variety of con- criminality, borderline PD (BPD) and antisocial ceptualizations of psychopathy (see Lilienfeld PD (APD; e.g., Blackburn & Coid, 1998; Hare, & Andrews, 1996, for details). We turn our 1991; Skeem & Mulvey, 2001), recidivism attention to this self-report measure of psychop- (e.g., Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998), sub- athy as it has rapidly become one of the most stance use (e.g., Taylor & Lang, 2006), and popular and frequently used measure of psy- distress (e.g., Verona, Patrick, & Joiner, 2001). chopathy. The psychopathy factors also differ with re- gard to the general personality traits that under- PPI/PPI-R lie each construct. From a Five-Factor model (FFM) approach, both psychopathy factors are The PPI was developed as the result of an substantially related to an antagonistic interper- iterative test construction approach in which sonal style (FFM Antagonism) and some degree items and the resultant scales were regularly of impulsivity/disinhibition (FFM Conscien- revisited and reworked “until both a well for- tiousness). The factors differ, however, in that mulated set of constructs and an adequate pool F2 is more strongly related to impulsivity/ of items to assess them is achieved” (Lilienfeld disinhibition and indices of negative emotional- & Andrews, 1996, p. 490). The PPI/PPI-R (re- ity (which are usually unrelated to F1 measures ferred to as the PPI from here on out) includes of psychopathy; see Lynam & Derefinko, the following eight subscales: Machiavellian 2006). Egocentricity, Rebellious Nonconformity, Blame Externalization, Carefree Nonplanful- Self-Report Psychopathy Instruments ness, Social Influence, Fearlessness, Stress Im- munity, and Coldheartedness. The PPI’s ability Despite its many advantages, there are as- to parse psychopathy into a number of narrow, pects of the PCL-R that limit its utility as an lower-order constructs offers much promise, assessment in certain circumstances. These lim- utility, and novelty as a means of understanding itations include a) the need for extensive train- how the various components of psychopathy ing prior to use of the PCL-R, b) use of a converge and diverge in relation to important lengthy interview, and c) access to file informa- aspects of psychopathy’s nomological network. tion pertaining to official criminal records and This more “atomic” approach is quite consistent institutional behavior prior to scoring the with our own research in which we have worked PCL-R. Unfortunately, interviews of this sort to understand psychopathy using traits from a are not always practical and institutional files general model of personality (e.g., Lynam & are not readily available outside of institutional Widiger, 2007; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leu- settings. In response to these limitations, several kefeld, 2001). Unfortunately, research using the self-report measures have been developed to PPI has moved from a focus on these eight assess psychopathy in these populations. These factors to the use of two higher-order factors measures differ, however, in the degree to that have been titled Fearless Dominance (PPI which they were designed to be congruent with FD) and Self-Centered Impulsivity (PPI ScI; the PCL-R. For example, self-report measures Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, such as the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale 2003; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005; cf., Neu- (SRP: Hare, 1985; SRP-III: Williams, Paulhus, mann, Malterer, & Newman, 2008). One of the & Hare, 2007), the Levenson Self-Report Psy- PPI subscales, Coldheartedness, does not load chopathy Scale (LSRP: Levenson, Kiehl, & on either of these two factors and is often ex- A META-ANALYSIS OF THE PPI 307 cluded from empirical studies that use the PPI with PCL-R scores (e.g., Malterer, Lilienfeld, (Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld, Patrick, & Test, Neumann, & Newman, 2010; Zolondek, Lilien- 2008; Patrick, Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld, & feld, Patrick & Fowler, 2006), as well as other Benning, 2006). This exclusion is unfortunate self-report measures such as the LSRP and given the centrality of coldheartedness to tradi- SRP-III (e.g., Gaughan et al., 2009;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heterogeneous Versus Homogeneous Measures: a Meta-Analysis of Predictive Efficacy
    HETEROGENEOUS VERSUS HOMOGENEOUS MEASURES: A META-ANALYSIS OF PREDICTIVE EFFICACY A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By SUZANNE L. DEAN M.S., Wright State University, 2008 _________________________________________ 2016 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL January 3, 2016 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE DISSERTATION PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Suzanne L. Dean ENTITLED Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous Measures: A Meta-Analysis of Predictive Efficacy BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy. _____________________________ Corey E. Miller, Ph.D. Dissertation Director _____________________________ Scott N. J. Watamaniuk, Ph.D. Graduate Program Director _____________________________ Robert E. W. Fyffe, Ph.D. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School Committee on Final Examination _____________________________ Corey E. Miller, Ph.D. _____________________________ David LaHuis, Ph.D. _____________________________ Allen Nagy, Ph.D. _____________________________ Debra Steele-Johnson, Ph.D. COPYRIGHT BY SUZANNE L. DEAN 2016 ABSTRACT Dean, Suzanne L. Ph.D., Industrial/Organizational Psychology Ph.D. program, Wright State University, 2016. Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous Measures: A Meta-Analysis of Predictive Efficacy. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the predictive validity and adverse impact of homogeneous and heterogeneous predictors on objective and subjective criteria for different sales roles. Because job performance is a dynamic and complex construct, I hypothesized that equally complex, heterogeneous predictors would have stronger correlations with objective and subjective criteria than homogeneous predictors. Forty-seven independent validation studies (N = 3,378) qualified for inclusion in this study. In general, heterogeneous predictors did not demonstrate significantly stronger correlations with the performance criteria than homogeneous predictors.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Validity of Reading Assessments GOTHENBURG STUDIES in EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES 328
    On the Validity of Reading Assessments GOTHENBURG STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES 328 On the Validity of Reading Assessments Relationships Between Teacher Judgements, External Tests and Pupil Self-assessments Stefan Johansson ACTA UNIVERSITATIS GOTHOBURGENSIS LOGO GOTHENBURG STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES 328 On the Validity of Reading Assessments Relationships Between Teacher Judgements, External Tests and Pupil Self-assessments Stefan Johansson ACTA UNIVERSITATIS GOTHOBURGENSIS LOGO © STEFAN JOHANSSON, 2013 ISBN 978-91-7346-736-0 ISSN 0436-1121 ISSN 1653-0101 Thesis in Education at the Department of Education and Special Education The thesis is also available in full text on http://hdl.handle.net/2077/32012 Photographer cover: Rebecka Karlsson Distribution: ACTA UNIVERSITATIS GOTHOBURGENSIS Box 222 SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden Print: Ale Tryckteam, Bohus 2013 Abstract Title: On the Validity of Reading Assessments: Relationships Between Teacher Judgements, External Tests and Pupil Self-assessments Language: English with a Swedish summary Keywords: Validity; Validation; Assessment; Teacher judgements; External tests; PIRLS 2001; Self-assessment; Multilevel models; Structural Equation Modeling; Socioeconomic status; Gender ISBN: 978-91-7346-736-0 The purpose of this thesis is to examine validity issues in different forms of assessments; teacher judgements, external tests, and pupil self-assessment in Swedish primary schools. The data used were selected from a large-scale study––PIRLS 2001––in which more than 11000 pupils and some 700 teachers from grades 3 and 4 participated. The primary method used in the secondary analyses to investigate validity issues of the assessment forms is multilevel Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with latent variables. An argument-based approach to validity was adopted, where possible weaknesses in assessment forms were addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Questionnaire Validity and Reliability
    Questionnaire Validity and reliability Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Outlines Introduction What is validity and reliability? Types of validity and reliability. How do you measure them? Types of Sampling Methods Sample size calculation G-Power ( Power Analysis) Research • The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions • In the broadest sense of the word, the research includes gathering of data in order to generate information and establish the facts for the advancement of knowledge. ● Step I: Define the research problem ● Step 2: Developing a research plan & research Design ● Step 3: Define the Variables & Instrument (validity & Reliability) ● Step 4: Sampling & Collecting data ● Step 5: Analysing data ● Step 6: Presenting the findings A questionnaire is • A technique for collecting data in which a respondent provides answers to a series of questions. • The vehicle used to pose the questions that the researcher wants respondents to answer. • The validity of the results depends on the quality of these instruments. • Good questionnaires are difficult to construct; • Bad questionnaires are difficult to analyze. •Identify the goal of your questionnaire •What kind of information do you want to gather with your questionnaire? • What is your main objective? • Is a questionnaire the best way to go about collecting this information? Ch 11 6 How To Obtain Valid Information • Ask purposeful questions • Ask concrete questions • Use time periods
    [Show full text]
  • Running Head: the STRUCTURE of PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY 1 Evaluating the Structure of Psychopathic Personality Traits: a Meta-An
    Running head: THE STRUCTURE OF PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY 1 Evaluating the Structure of Psychopathic Personality Traits: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory Jared R. Ruchensky, John F. Edens, Katherine S. Corker, M. Brent Donnellan, Edward A. Witt, Daniel M. Blonigen Version: 11/17/2017 In press, Psychological Assessment © 2017, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/pas0000520 THE STRUCTURE OF PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY 2 Abstract Which core traits exemplify psychopathic personality disorder is a hotly debated question within psychology, particularly regarding the role of ostensibly adaptive traits such as stress immunity, social potency, and fearlessness. Much of the research on the inter-relationships among putatively adaptive and more maladaptive traits of psychopathy has focused on the factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) and its revision, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Revised (PPI-R). These instruments include content scales that have coalesced to form 2 higher-order factors in some (but not all) prior studies: Fearless Dominance and Self-Centered Impulsivity. Given the inconsistencies in prior research, we performed a meta- analytic factor analysis of the 8 content scales from these instruments (total N > 18,000) and found general support for these 2 dimensions in community samples. The structure among offender samples (e.g., prisoners, forensic patients) supported a three-factor model in which the Fearlessness content scale uniquely loaded onto Self-centered Impulsivity (rather than Fearless Dominance). There were also indications that the Stress Immunity content scale had different relations to the other PPI scales in offender versus community samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Validity: Theoretical Basis Importance of Validity
    Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Validity Validity: Theoretical Basis Importance of Validity Classic & Contemporary Approaches PSYC3302: Psychological Measurement and Its Trinitarian View Unitary View Applications Test Content Internal Structure Response Processes Mark Hurlstone Associations With Univeristy of Western Australia Other Variables Consequences of Testing Other Week 5 Perspectives Reliability & Validity [email protected] Psychological Measurement Learning Objectives Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au Validity • Introduction to the concept of validity Importance of Validity • Overview of the theoretical basis of validity: Classic & Contemporary 1 Trinitarian view of validity Approaches Trinitarian View 2 Unitary view of validity Unitary View Test Content • Alternative perspectives on validity Internal Structure Response Processes • Contrasting validity and reliability Associations With Other Variables Consequences of Testing Other Perspectives Reliability & Validity [email protected] Psychological Measurement Validity in Everyday Usage Psychological Measurement mark.hurlstone @uwa.edu.au • In everyday language, we say something is valid if it is Validity sound, meaningful, or supported by evidence Importance of Validity • e.g., we may speak of a valid theory, a valid argument, Classic & or a valid reason Contemporary Approaches • In legal terminology, lawyers say something is valid if it is Trinitarian View Unitary View "executed with the proper formalities"—such as a valid
    [Show full text]
  • Criterion-Referenced Measurement for Educational Evaluation and Selection
    Criterion-Referenced Measurement for Educational Evaluation and Selection Christina Wikström Department of Educational Measurement Umeå University No. 1 Department of Educational Measurement Umeå University Thesis 2005 Printed by Umeå University March 2005 © Christina Wikström ISSN 1652-9650 ISBN 91-7305-865-3 Abstract In recent years, Sweden has adopted a criterion-referenced grading system, where the grade outcome is used for several purposes, but foremost for educational evaluation on student- and school levels as well as for selection to higher education. This thesis investigates the consequences of using criterion-referenced measurement for both educational evaluation and selection purposes. The thesis comprises an introduction and four papers that empirically investigate school grades and grading practices in Swedish upper secondary schools. The first paper investigates the effect of school competition on the school grades. The analysis focuses on how students in schools with and without competition are ranked, based on their grades and SweSAT scores. The results show that schools that are exposed to competition tend to grade their students higher than other schools. This effect is found to be related to the use of grades as quality indicators for the schools, which means that schools that compete for their students tend to be more lenient, hence inflating the grades. The second paper investigates grade averages over a six-year period, starting with the first cohort who graduated from upper secondary school with a GPA based on criterion-referenced grades. The results show that grades have increased every year since the new grading system was introduced, which cannot be explained by improved performances, selection effects or strategic course choices.
    [Show full text]
  • Validity (Content Validity) Is Measured First, and Then Validity Reliability
    the validity (content validity) is measured first, and then Validity reliability. Validity refers to a test's accuracy. “The soundness or appropriateness of a test or instrument in measuring what it is designed to measure” e.g: the exam is supposed to test the knowledge. A test is valid when it measures what it is intended to measure. The intended uses for most tests fall into one of three categories, and each category is associated with a different method for establishing validity: (these types will be discussed in detailes later on) – The test is used to obtain information about an examinee's familiarity with a particular content or behavior domain: content validity. Face validity can be considered as part of content validity. – The test is administered to determine the extent to which an examinee possesses a particular hypothetical trait: construct validity. – The test is used to estimate or predict an examinee's standing or performance on an external criterion: criterion-related validity. Types of Experimental Validity • Internal – Is the experimenter measuring the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable? • External – Can the results be generalised to the wider population? There are 4 types of validity (Analysis done without 3) (analyzed statistically by SPSS) SPSS (manually)) 4) Criterion 1) 2) Reliability and validity are strongly related to each other. Validity of Measurement • Meaning analysis: the process of attaching meaning to concepts – Face validity – Content validity • Empirical analysis: how well our procedures (operational definition) accurately observe what we want to measure – Criterion validity. – Construct validity Done before content validity and it’s not Face Validity performed alone.
    [Show full text]
  • The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised
    The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised: Evaluation of Its Psychometric Properties, Incremental Validity, and Moderating Effects of Gender in a Correctional Sample by Natalia L. Nikolova M.A. (Psychology), Simon Fraser University, 2009 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Psychology Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Natalia L. Nikolova 2013 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2013 Approval Name: Natalia L. Nikolova Degree: Doctor of Philosophy (Psychology) Title of Thesis: The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised: Evaluation of Its Psychometric Properties, Incremental Validity, and Moderating Effects of Gender in a Correctional Sample Examining Committee: Chair: Robert Ley Associate Professor Kevin S. Douglas Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Stephen D. Hart Supervisor Professor Marlene M. Moretti Supervisor Professor William Glackman Internal Examiner Associate Professor School of Criminology Martin Sellbom External Examiner Assistant Professor Department of Psychology University of Alabama Date Defended/Approved: May 10, 2013 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Ethics Statement The author, whose name appears on the title page of this work, has obtained, for the research described in this work, either: a. human research ethics approval from the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics, or b. advance approval of the animal care protocol from the University Animal Care Committee of Simon Fraser University; or has conducted the research c. as a co-investigator, collaborator or research assistant in a research project approved in advance, or d. as a member of a course approved in advance for minimal risk human research, by the Office of Research Ethics. A copy of the approval letter has been filed at the Theses Office of the University Library at the time of submission of this thesis or project.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 5: Principles of Psychometrics: Validity I
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. Your use of this material constitutes acceptance of that license and the conditions of use of materials on this site. Copyright 2006, The Johns Hopkins University and William Eaton. All rights reserved. Use of these materials permitted only in accordance with license rights granted. Materials provided “AS IS”; no representations or warranties provided. User assumes all responsibility for use, and all liability related thereto, and must independently review all materials for accuracy and efficacy. May contain materials owned by others. User is responsible for obtaining permissions for use from third parties as needed. Statistics in Psychosocial Research Lecture 5 Validity I Lecturer: William Eaton Validity The degree to which a test, scale, or assessment measures what it is supposed to measure. Outline • Face Validity • Content Validity • Construct Validity •Internal •External • Criterion Validity • Concurrent • Predictive • Validity and reliability • Validity and utility Classical Test Theory and Reliability: x = Tx + e The observed score equals the true score plus random measurement error Validity x = Tx + es + er The observed score equals the true score plus systematic error (bias) plus random measurement error Face Validity Does the item seem right? CESD: Depression: “I felt depressed” MMPI: Schizophrenia: “I believe in God” • Increases motivation among respondents • Reduces dissatisfaction among respondents • Enhances credibility of results • Improves public relations Face Validity: IQ Test Example 1. What would be the next number in this series? 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 5 ... 8 ... 13 ... 21 ... 34 ... ?? 47 53 55 62 65 I don't know Face Validity: IQ Test Example 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist to Operationalize Measurement Characteristics of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures David O
    Francis et al. Systematic Reviews (2016) 5:129 DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0307-4 METHODOLOGY Open Access Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures David O. Francis1,2,3*, Melissa L. McPheeters3,4,5, Meaghan Noud1, David F. Penson2,4,6,7 and Irene D. Feurer2,8 Abstract Background: The purpose of this study was to advance a checklist of evaluative criteria designed to assess patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures’ developmental measurement properties and applicability, which can be used by systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with a varied range of expertise in psychometric measure development methodology. Methods: A directed literature search was performed to identify original studies, textbooks, consensus guidelines, and published reports that propose criteria for assessing the quality of PRO measures. Recommendations from these sources were iteratively distilled into a checklist of key attributes. Preliminary items underwent evaluation through 24 cognitive interviews with clinicians and quantitative researchers. Six measurement theory methodological novices independently applied the final checklist to assess six PRO measures encompassing a variety of methods, applications, and clinical constructs. Agreement between novice and expert scores was assessed. Results: The distillation process yielded an 18-item checklist with six domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (5) scoring and interpretation, and (6) respondent burden and presentation. With minimal instruction, good agreement in checklist item ratings was achieved between quantitative researchers with expertise in measurement theory and less experienced clinicians (mean kappa 0.70; range 0.66–0.87). Conclusions: We present a simplified checklist that can help guide systematic reviewers, researchers, and clinicians with varied measurement theory expertise to evaluate the strengths and weakness of candidate PRO measures’ developmental properties and the appropriateness for specific applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Validity and Reliability in Classroom, School-Wide, Or District- Wide Assessments to Be Used in Teacher/Principal Evaluations
    Understanding Validity and Reliability in Classroom, School-Wide, or District- Wide Assessments to be used in Teacher/Principal Evaluations Warren Shillingburg, PhD January 2016 Introduction As expectations have risen and requirements for student growth expectations have increased across the country, more and more school districts are being asked to develop local assessments and to use them as part of their teacher evaluation process. As districts explore this process, many are concerned about how they can develop local assessments that provide information to help students learn, provide evidence of a teacher’s contribution to student growth, and create reliable and valid assessments. These terms, validity and reliability, can be very complex and difficult for many educators to understand. If you are in a district that has access to appropriate software or the luxury of hiring a statistician to work through formulas, you are in the minority. Most districts cannot afford these expenses and struggle just to find the resources and time to create any assessment, giving very little time and attention to the concepts of validity and reliability. In light of this reality, some districts are choosing to simply not go this route and instead follow the premise that everyone contributes in some way to a child’s reading and math learning, and using the state or national assessments they currently have in these areas to apply to all teachers. Although there can be some validity in this assumption, with the state expectation that all LEAs shall ensure that multiple measures of student academic progress are used (Arizona State Board of Education, 2016) in a teacher/principal evaluation, districts will need to either find other assessments or develop their own assessments to meet this requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Validity for Classroom Teachers Slide # Title Presenter
    Presenter’s Notes for PowerPoint: Understanding Validity for Classroom Teachers Slide # Presenter Notes Title This module provides teachers with basic information they need to understand what 1. Understanding validity is and why it is so important. Both reliability and validity are necessary for a Validity for teacher to make accurate inferences about student learning based on assessment Teachers results. For this reason, you need to study both this module and the Reliability module to understand quality assessment of student learning. This commonly used illustration provides visual metaphors of the concepts of Reliability and Validity. • The first target represents a valid and reliable assessment. The bull’s eye in the center of the target is shot with accuracy again and again. The correct target is being aimed at and it is being hit consistently. So validity (or the correct target) and reliability (or consistency) are evident. • The second target shows a scenario in which the shots are consistently striking 2. Validity & in a particular location – but it isn’t on the target. So if this were an assessment it Reliability would be reliable but not valid. • The third target shows another scenario. The shots are aimed at the target, but they are striking the target in a variety of locations and some aren’t hitting the target at all. There is no consistency or reliability and because of this there is also no validity. So it is important to remember that validity and reliability interact with and influence each other. Both are necessary for quality educational tests. This module answers the essential questions: • What is test validity? • What is content-related validity? • What is criterion-related validity? 3.
    [Show full text]