Objectives: To develop an instrument to measure adherence to frequency, intensity, and quality of performance of home-based exercise (HBE) programs recommended by a physical therapist and to evaluate its construct validity and reliability in patients with low back pain. Methods: The Exercise Adherence Scale (EXAS) was developed following a literature search, an expert panel review, and a pilot test. The construct validity of the EXAS was determined based on data from 27 participants through an investigation of the convergent validity between adherence, lack of time to exercise, and lack of motivation to exercise. Associations between adherence, pain, and disability were determined to test divergent validity. The reliability of the EXAS quality of performance score was assessed using video recordings from 50 participants performing four exercises. Results: Correlations between the EXAS and lack of time to exercise, lack of motivation to exercise, pain, and disability were rho = 0.47, rho = 0.48, rho = 0.005, and rho = 0.24, respectively. The intrarater reliability of the quality of performance score was Kappa quadratic weights (Kqw) = 0.87 (95%-CI 0.83–0.92). The interrater reliability was Kqw = 0.36 (95%-CI 0.27–0.45). Conclusions: The EXAS demonstrates acceptable construct validity for the measurement of adherence to HBE programs. Additionally, the EXAS shows excellent intrarater reliability and poor interrater reliability for the quality of performance score and is the first instrument to measure adherence to frequency, intensity, and quality of performance of HBE programs. The EXAS allows researchers and clinicians to better investigate the effects of adherence to HBE programs on the outcomes of interventions and treatments.
LINK
In research methodology, epistemology is concerned with the question how humans generate knowledge. In facility management (FM) research, for instance, it deals with the evaluation criteria such as validity and reliability by which researchers discriminate good knowledge from bad. The objective of this paper is to add to the scholarly methodological aspects in FM research. The paper takes a postpositivist stance and pre-supposes that scholars are able to discover what happens in FM through the categorization and scientific measurement of affective responses. It applies a method by which scholars are able to develop good knowledge and by which talented bachelor students are involved in FM research.In this study 26 semi-structured interviews were conducted at nine different organizations in the Netherlands. Interviews, which focused on office environments and productivity, were conducted in pairs by Honours students. This paper reports on methodological issues of this study. Data collection and analysis by different researchers revealed serious threats to validity and reliability. Consequently an interrater agreement (IRA), measuring the degree of agreement between raters, was introduced to reveal and overcome differences in interpretations.In this paper the difficulties of achieving good agreement were considered. Adjustment between raters and clear demarcation of constructs are necessary. A synopsis of usage and reporting of qualitative interview approaches is shown.
OBJECTIVE: PRECIS - 2 is a tool that could improve design insight for trialists. Our aim was to validate the PRECIS - 2 tool, unlike its predecessor, testing the discriminant validity and inter-rater reliability.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Over 80 international trialists, methodologists, clinicians and policymakers created PRECIS - 2 helping to ensure face and content validity. The inter-rater reliability of PREC IS - 2 was measured using 19 experienced trialists who used PRECIS - 2 to score a diverse sample of 15 RCT protocols. Discriminant validity was tested with two raters to independently determine if the trial protocols were more pragmatic or more explanatory, with scores from the 19 raters for the 15 trials as predictors of pragmatism.RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was generally good, with seven out of nine domains having an ICC over 0.65. Flexibility (Adherence) and Recruitment had wide confidence intervals but raters found these difficult to rate and wanted more information. Each of the nine PRECIS - 2 domains could be used to differentiate between trials taking more pragmatic or more explanatory approaches with better than chance discrimination for all domains.CONCLUSION: We have assessed the validity and reliability of PRECIS - 2. An elaboration paper and website provide guidance to help future users of the tool which is continuing to be tested by trial teams, systematic reviewers and funders.
