Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25738628›Full record

ArticleNursing research

The many issues in reliability research: choosing from a horn of plenty.

Klaas Sijtsma, L Andries van der Ark

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Klaas SijtsmaKlaas Sijtsma, PhD, is Full Professor, Department of Methodology and Statistics, TSB, Tilburg University, The Netherlands. L. Andries van der Ark, PhD, is Associate Professor, Research Institute for Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L Andries van der Ark

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We respond to three commentaries on our discussion article on different conceptions of test score reliability. First, we discuss the use of standard errors for reliability estimates. Second, we discuss the desirability not to confuse issues pertaining to the dimensionality of the test data (closely related to construct validity) and the degree to which measurement values are repeatable under the same circumstances (i.e., the reliability issue). Third, we discuss a new reliability estimation method that is almost unbiased irrespective of the dimensionality of the test data.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalNursing ResearchReproducibility of ResultsHumans

Identifiers

PMID25738628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.