Cargando…

We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability

Following debates in psychology on the importance of replication research, we have also started to see pleas for a more prominent role for replication research in medical education. To enable replication research, it is of paramount importance to carefully study the reliability of the instruments we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leppink, Jimmie, Pérez-Fuster, Patricia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28390030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0347-z
_version_ 1783243107725213696
author Leppink, Jimmie
Pérez-Fuster, Patricia
author_facet Leppink, Jimmie
Pérez-Fuster, Patricia
author_sort Leppink, Jimmie
collection PubMed
description Following debates in psychology on the importance of replication research, we have also started to see pleas for a more prominent role for replication research in medical education. To enable replication research, it is of paramount importance to carefully study the reliability of the instruments we use. Cronbach’s alpha has been the most widely used estimator of reliability in the field of medical education, notably as some kind of quality label of test or questionnaire scores based on multiple items or of the reliability of assessment across exam stations. However, as this narrative review outlines, Cronbach’s alpha or alternative reliability statistics may complement but not replace psychometric methods such as factor analysis. Moreover, multiple-item measurements should be preferred above single-item measurements, and when using single-item measurements, coefficients as Cronbach’s alpha should not be interpreted as indicators of the reliability of a single item when that item is administered after fundamentally different activities, such as learning tasks that differ in content. Finally, if we want to follow up on recent pleas for more replication research, we have to start studying the test-retest reliability of the instruments we use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5466566
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54665662017-06-23 We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability Leppink, Jimmie Pérez-Fuster, Patricia Perspect Med Educ Review Article Following debates in psychology on the importance of replication research, we have also started to see pleas for a more prominent role for replication research in medical education. To enable replication research, it is of paramount importance to carefully study the reliability of the instruments we use. Cronbach’s alpha has been the most widely used estimator of reliability in the field of medical education, notably as some kind of quality label of test or questionnaire scores based on multiple items or of the reliability of assessment across exam stations. However, as this narrative review outlines, Cronbach’s alpha or alternative reliability statistics may complement but not replace psychometric methods such as factor analysis. Moreover, multiple-item measurements should be preferred above single-item measurements, and when using single-item measurements, coefficients as Cronbach’s alpha should not be interpreted as indicators of the reliability of a single item when that item is administered after fundamentally different activities, such as learning tasks that differ in content. Finally, if we want to follow up on recent pleas for more replication research, we have to start studying the test-retest reliability of the instruments we use. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2017-04-07 2017-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5466566/ /pubmed/28390030 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0347-z Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Review Article
Leppink, Jimmie
Pérez-Fuster, Patricia
We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability
title We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability
title_full We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability
title_fullStr We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability
title_full_unstemmed We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability
title_short We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability
title_sort we need more replication research – a case for test-retest reliability
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466566/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28390030
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0347-z
work_keys_str_mv AT leppinkjimmie weneedmorereplicationresearchacasefortestretestreliability
AT perezfusterpatricia weneedmorereplicationresearchacasefortestretestreliability