Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8818987

Instrument development: getting started.

A E Davis
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The four steps involved in instrument development are: concept identification; item construction; validity testing and reliability testing. The clinician who has begun to identify characteristics associated with a patient group has in reality begun the process of instrument development. The challenge for clinicians and researchers is to transform those observable phenomena into a instrument that measures the attribute of the group. Only with reliable and valid measures can true relationships and differences be determined and effective intervention programs be formulated.

Explore related subjects

BiasClinical Nursing ResearchData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansReproducibility of ResultsJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A E Davis. 1996. Instrument development: getting started.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01376517-199606000-00009

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed1999

Optimum biased-coin designs for sequential treatment allocation with covariate information.

Randomized optimum designs of biased-coin type are compared with other strategies for the sequential allocation of two or more treatments in a clinical trial. The emphasis is on the variance of estimated treatment contrasts. This variance, which depends on the design strategy employed, may be interpreted as the number of patients on whom information is lost. Simulations provide clear plots of the evolution of this loss during the course of the clinical trial.

Bias↗