Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36545443›Full record

ArticleAEM education and training2022

Educator's blueprint: A how-to guide for collecting validity evidence in survey- based research.

Jeffery Hill, Kathleen Ogle, Michael Gottlieb, Sally A Santen, Anthony R Artino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Best practices for reporting survey-based research.AEM education and training · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Jeffery HillDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8369-3022
Kathleen OgleDepartment of Emergency Medicine George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington District of Columbia USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7658-0895
Michael GottliebDepartment of Emergency Medicine Rush University Medical Center Chicago Illinois USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3276-8375
Sally A SantenDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Cincinnati Cincinnati Ohio USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8327-8002
Anthony R ArtinoDepartment of Health, Human Function, and Rehabilitation Sciences George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences Washington District of Columbia USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-7853

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surveys are descriptive assessment tools. Like other assessment tools, the validity and reliability of the data obtained from surveys depend, in large part, on the rigor of the development process. Without validity evidence, data from surveys may lack meaning, leading to uncertainty as to how well the survey truly measures the intended constructs. In documenting the evidence for the validity of survey results and their intended use, it is incumbent on the survey creator to have a firm understanding of validity frameworks. Having an understanding of validity evidence and how each step in the survey development process can support the validity argument makes it easier for the researcher to develop, implement, and publish a high-quality survey.

Identifiers

PMID36545443
PMCPMC9763973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.