Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs > v.43(1) > 1002933

TOOLS
Lee, Kim, Kim, Chae, and Cho: Measurement Properties of Self-report Questionnaires Published in Korean Nursing Journals
Original Article
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing

Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2013; 43(1): 50-58.

Published online: 28 February 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.1.50

Measurement Properties of Self-report Questionnaires Published in Korean Nursing Journals

Eun-Hyun Lee1, Chun-Ja Kim2, Eun Jung Kim3, Hyun-Ju Chae4, Soo-Yeon Cho5

1Graduate School of Public Health, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea.

2College of Nursing, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea.

3College of Nursing, Eulji University, Seongnam, Korea.

4College of Nursing, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea.

5School of Medicine, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Kim, Chun-Ja. Ajou University College of Nursing, San 5 Wonchon-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon 443-721, Korea. Tel: +82-31-219-7017, Fax: +82-31-219-7020, ckimha@ajou.ac.kr

Received 6 April 2012       Accepted 27 September 2012

© 2013 Korean Society of Nursing Science

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate measurement properties of self-report questionnaires for studies published in Korean nursing journals.

Methods

Of 424 Korean nursing articles initially identified, 168 articles met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the measurements used in the studies and interpretability were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. It consists of items on internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity, construct validity including structural validity, hypothesis testing, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity, and responsiveness. For each item of the COSMIN checklist, measurement properties are rated on a four-point scale: excellent, good, fair, and poor. Each measurement property is scored with worst score counts.

Results

All articles used the classical test theory for measurement properties. Internal consistency (72.6%), construct validity (56.5%), and content validity (38.2%) were most frequently reported properties being rated as 'excellent' by COSMIN checklist, whereas other measurement properties were rarely reported.

Conclusion

A systematic review of measurement properties including interpretability of most instruments warrants further research and nursing-focused checklists assessing measurement properties should be developed to facilitate intervention outcomes across Korean studies.

Keywords: Measurement properties, Questionnaires

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Flowchart for the selected studies.
jkan-43-50-g001
Figure 2
Frequency of methodological studies by year.
jkan-43-50-g002
Table 1
General Characteristics of Selected Studies (N = 168)
jkan-43-50-i001
Table 2
Overall Methodological Quality of Measurement Properties (N = 168)
jkan-43-50-i002

In all selected articles measurement properties were evaluated based on CTT (Classical Test Theory).

*123 articles measured content validity; †45 articles measured cross cultural validity; ‡Measurement property was not conducted on the study.

Table 3
Interpretability (N = 168)
jkan-43-50-i003

*Measurement property was not conducted on the study.

References

1. Bang KS, Lee SO, Park YI, Jun MH, Kim HS, Son HM, et al. Analysis of published papers and their keywords in the Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education 2007. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ. 2008. 14(2):244–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.5977/JKASNE.2008.14.2.244.
2. Bock RD. A brief history of item theory response. Educ Meas: Issue Pract. 1997. 16(4):21–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00605.x.
3. Brislin RW. Lonner WJ, Berry JW, editors. The wording and translation of research instruments. Field methods in cross-cultural research. 1986. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage;137–164.
4. Choi KS, Song MS, Hwang AR, Kim KH, Chung MS, Shin SR, et al. The trends of nursing research in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Nursing. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2000. 30(5):1207–1218.
5. Chung BY, Yi MS, Choi EH. Trends of nursing research in the Journal of Oncology Nursing. J Korean Oncol Nurs. 2008. 8(1):61–66.
6. DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, et al. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007. 39(2):155–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x.
7. Jeong GH, Ahn YM, Cho DS. Coincidence analysis of keywords of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing with MeSH. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2005. 35(7):1420–1425.
8. Kane RL. Understanding health care outcomes research. 2006. 2nd ed. Sudbury, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett.
9. Kang HC. Analysis of statistical method applied in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing for recent 3 years (1999-2001). J Korean Acad Nurs. 2002. 32(6):929–935.
10. Kim JI, Lee EH, Kang HS, Oh HE, Lee EJ, Jun EM, et al. Analysis of published papers by keywords and research methods in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (2007-2009). Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2010. 16(3):307–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2010.16.3.307.
11. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975. 28(4):563–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.
12. Lee EH, Kim JS. Major effect models of social support and its statistical methods in Korean nursing research. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2000. 30(6):1503–1520.
13. Lim NY, Kim JI, Lee EN, Lee KS, Lee I, Cho KS, et al. The analysis on published research in the Journal of Muscle and Joint Health. J Muscle Joint Health. 2010. 17(1):79–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.5953/JMJH.2010.17.1.079.
14. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986. 35(6):382–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017.
15. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. 63(7):737–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.
16. Munro BH. Statistical methods for health care research. 2005. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
17. Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. 2010. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
18. Seong TJ. Understanding and application of item response theory. 2001. Paju: Kyoyookbook.
19. Shin HS, Hyun MS, Ku MO, Cho MO, Kim SY, Jeong JS, et al. Analysis of research papers published in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Nursing-focused on research trends, intervention studies, and level of evidence in the research. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2010. 40(1):139–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2010.40.1.139.
20. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012. 21(4):651–657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.
21. Watkins K, Connell CM. Measurement of health-related QOL in diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004. 22(17):1109–1126.

Appendix 1

TOOLS
Similar articles