Considerations of a test-retest reliability study in injury prevention.
Considerations of a test-retest reliability study in injury prevention.
复制标题
伤害预防中重测可靠性研究的考虑。
DOI：
10.1097/ta.0000000000001275
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Puyana,JuanCarlos
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bonilla-Escobar,FranciscoJ;Restrepo-Lopera,Catalina;Puyana,JuanCarlos
To the Editor: Reliability measures the capacity of a test to be reproducible. It is expressed by the degree of influence of random errors in a measurement. It is also a necessary but not a sufficient component of accurate measurements. It is critical to identify ‘‘operational scales’’for a specific outcome to be measured. When doing research, scientists are always searching for measurable outcomes. Observable situations (ie, injuries, deaths, strokes) are relatively easy outcome to measure; however, more difficult outcomes, such as risk of injuries, require a deeper inquiry and analysis of information, and consequently, reliable and valid instruments are needed. Recently, Gittelman et al. published the test-retest results of an injury prevention screening tool for children younger than 1 year of age. 1 Reliability is an important component to the designing process of a survey, and to be able to get there, researchers should follow different steps that preferably should first include face validity, content validity, internal consistency, intra-and inter-rater agreement, and test-retest agreement. After this, they can move forward to criterion, discriminant, convergent, and construct validity. 2In a quality improvement program for injury prevention for pediatricians, six screening tools containing 10 to 20 questions were developed for each well-child visits through 1 year of age (birth, 2 months, 4, 6, 9 months, and 1 year). Questions were adapted from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Injury Prevention Program (TIPP) program (http://patiented. solutions. aap. org/Handout-Collection. aspx? categoryid= 32033). Each tool was reviewed by a group of members of AAP’s Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention (content validity), and they were pretested in approximately 10 parents (face validity). 3 These screening tools were subjects of face and content validity even if not defined as such in the manuscript. Nevertheless, in the Gittelman et al. study, the six screening tools were merged into one by removing questions based on repetition and decided only by the authors’ criteria, resulting in a new screening tool of 30 questions. 1
