PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 73, No. 2, February 1993, pp. 102-110

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sim, J
Right arrow Articles by Arnell, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sim, J
Right arrow Articles by Arnell, P

Article

Measurement validity in physical therapy research

J Sim and P Arnell

School of Health and Social Sciences, Coventry University, United Kingdom.

This article considers the role of measurement validity within physical therapy research. The concept of measurement validity is identified as a component of internal validity, and it is differentiated from the notion of reliability; these concepts are related to systematic and random sources of error, respectively. Using examples from physical therapy and rehabilitation, four main types of validity are reviewed: face validity, criterion-related validity, content validity, and construct validity. The differing implications of these types of validity for quantitative and qualitative research are discussed. Three principal areas of concern are then addressed, based on a critical discussion of selected examples from the literature. First, it is argued that validity is often poorly distinguished from the allied concept of reliability and that purported claims for validity often only demonstrate reliability. Second, it is claimed that validity is too often neglected in favor of reliability, and specific examples relating to gait analysis are put forward to support this argument. Third, some of the methodological difficulties that may occur when attempts are made to demonstrate validity are considered. The article concludes with a plea for a closer focus on the issue of measurement validity within physical therapy research.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Clin PharmacolHome page
W. A. Colburn
Biomarkers in Drug Discovery and Development: From Target Identification through Drug Marketing
J. Clin. Pharmacol., April 1, 2003; 43(4): 329 - 341.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
P Feys, M Duportail, D Kos, P Van Aschand, and P Ketelaer
Validity of the TEMPA for the measurement of upper limb function in multiple sclerosis
Clinical Rehabilitation, February 1, 2002; 16(2): 166 - 173.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
L. Prosser and A. Canby
Further validation of the Elderly Mobility Scale for measurement of mobility of hospitalized elderly people
Clinical Rehabilitation, November 1, 1997; 11(4): 338 - 343.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Physical Therapy Association.