Eric K. H. Chan, Bruno D. Zumbo, Michelle Y. Chen, Wen Zhang, Ira Darmawanti, Olievia P. Mulyana
Quality of life in health has received a great deal of attention in research, policy, and clinical practice. Measurement (psychometric) validity is a central issue in the development and evaluation of quality of life instruments. In this study, we examined the reporting of validity evidence in articles published in the 2012 volume of the journal Quality of Life Research, the official journal of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) and the leading academic journal in health-related quality of life research. The journal’s official website was used to search for research articles for our study. Thirty-three articles were reviewed. The number of sources of validity evidence reported per study ranged from zero to five, with a mode of two. The sources of validity evidence reported included internal structure (n = 20 [60.6 %]), construct validity (n = 19 [57.6 %]), convergent validity (n = 19 [57.6 %]), discriminant validity (n = 14 [42.4 %]), concurrent validity (n = 8 [24.2 %]), content validity (n = 4 [12.1 %]), and predictive validity (n = 1 [3.0 %]). Validity evidence regarding response processes and consequences were not reported in any of the studies. Our findings suggest that researchers conducting validation studies are not relying on only one source of validity evidence at the exclusion of all others. However, certain sources of evidence central to the validity claim are not reported. © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014.
Measurement, Evaluation, and Research Methodology (MERM) Program, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, and Special Education, The University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, BC, Canada; Department of Educational Psychology and Guidance, State University of Surabaya, Ketintang Baru XIV/2 East Java, Surabaya, 60231, Indonesia
