Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29942800›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2018

Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer.

Godfred O Boateng, Torsten B Neilands, Edward A Frongillo, Hugo R Melgar-Quiñonez, Sera L Young

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2,017 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2,017citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

NCT05580848 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Wrist Arthroscopy During Surgical Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures Improves Functional Outcome: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorClinic for Orthopedics LovranRan2022 to 2024Enrolled56ConditionsFracture, Radius Fracture DistalArmsWrist arthroscopy
NCT07413107 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Development and Validation of the Italian Version of the Waddell Chronic Disability Index for People With Low Back Pain

TypeobservationalSponsorIstituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri SpARan2024 to 2026Enrolled115ConditionsLow Back Pain
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2,017 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Psychometric framework for coexistence with large carnivores.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article

1,957 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Godfred O BoatengDepartment of Anthropology and Global Health, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.
Torsten B NeilandsDivision of Prevention Science, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Edward A FrongilloDepartment of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.
Hugo R Melgar-QuiñonezInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Human Nutrition, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Sera L YoungDepartment of Anthropology and Global Health, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States.

Funding

Ujima Mentoring ProgramP30MH062246 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MALLORY O JOHNSON · 2001 to 2026
$57.4M
Health consequences of water insecurity for HIV-infected mothers & their infantsR21MH108444 · NIMH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI YOUNG, SERA LEWISE · 2016 to 2017
$390k
NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062246NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH108444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scale development and validation are critical to much of the work in the health, social, and behavioral sciences. However, the constellation of techniques required for scale development and evaluation can be onerous, jargon-filled, unfamiliar, and resource-intensive. Further, it is often not a part of graduate training. Therefore, our goal was to concisely review the process of scale development in as straightforward a manner as possible, both to facilitate the development of new, valid, and reliable scales, and to help improve existing ones. To do this, we have created a primer for best practices for scale development in measuring complex phenomena. This is not a systematic review, but rather the amalgamation of technical literature and lessons learned from our experiences spent creating or adapting a number of scales over the past several decades. We identified three phases that span nine steps. In the first phase, items are generated and the validity of their content is assessed. In the second phase, the scale is constructed. Steps in scale construction include pre-testing the questions, administering the survey, reducing the number of items, and understanding how many factors the scale captures. In the third phase, scale evaluation, the number of dimensions is tested, reliability is tested, and validity is assessed. We have also added examples of best practices to each step. In sum, this primer will equip both scientists and practitioners to understand the ontology and methodology of scale development and validation, thereby facilitating the advancement of our understanding of a range of health, social, and behavioral outcomes.

Indexed as

content validityfactor analysisitem reductionpsychometric evaluationscale developmenttests of dimensionalitytests of reliabilitytests of validity

Identifiers

PMID29942800
PMCPMC6004510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.