IAHRW International Journal of Social Sciences Review

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Evaluating the Content Validity Index of Spiritual Practices Questionnaire (SPQ)


Affiliations
1 Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Psychology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


In the development of a psychological instrument, two essential aspects of psychometrics i.e. 'reliability and validity' of the instrument is required. In the present study the questionnaire developers starts content validity process with a set of 122 items by computing Content Validity Index (CVI) using judges' ratings on each item by considering the item's 'relevancy and clarity' rated by the panel of seven subject experts. Their ratings were used to calculate the Item level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale level content validity index (S-CVI). Scale level content validity index (S-CVI) was calculated by using the average approach. On the basis of the I-CVI, decision for retaining, retaining, revising and excluding the items was taken. Modified kappa was also performed for adjusting chance agreement from the degree of agreement. The final SPQ contained 120 items.

Keywords

Content Validity, Spiritual Practices Questionnaire, Content Validity Index for Items (I-CVI).
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Abdollahpour, E., Nejat, S., Nourozian, M., & Majdzadeh, R. (2010). The process of content validity in instrument development. Iranian Epidemiology, 6(4), 66-74.

  • Beck, C. T, & Gable, R. K. (2001). Ensuring content validity: An illustration of the process. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 9,201 -215.

  • Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86(2), 127-137.

  • Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-7.

  • Grant, J. S., & Davis, L. L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research Nursing Health, 20(3), 269-274

  • Haynes, S., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7,238-247.

  • Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage Publication.

  • Londhe, M. (2014). Concept of lokasamgraha Lokamanya Tilak's perspective. Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, (Bi-monthly), IV(IV),270-277.

  • Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6),382-385.

  • Polit, D. R, & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research Nursing Health, 29(5),489-497.

  • Polit, D. F, Beck, C. T, & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommend-actions. Research Nursing Health, 30(4), 459-467.

  • Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research,27(2),94-104.

  • The Guardian (2016). Yoga joins UNESCO world heritage list. Retrieved: February, 28, 2018, from: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/01/yoga-joins-unesco-intangible-world-heritage-list

  • Waltz, C. R, Strickland, O. L., &Lenz, E. R. (2005). Measurement in nursing and health research (3rded.). New York: Springer.

  • Waltz, C, & Bausell, B. R. (1981). Nursing research: Design statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia: Davis FA.

  • Wynd, C. A., & Schaefer, M. A. (2002). The osteoporosis risk assessment tool: Establishing content validity through a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 15(3), 184-188.

  • Wynd, C. A., Schmidt, B., & Schaefer, M. A. (2003). Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 25(5),508-518.


Abstract Views: 394

PDF Views: 1




  • Evaluating the Content Validity Index of Spiritual Practices Questionnaire (SPQ)

Abstract Views: 394  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Benkat Krishna Bharti
Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
Ruchi Singh
Department of Psychology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract


In the development of a psychological instrument, two essential aspects of psychometrics i.e. 'reliability and validity' of the instrument is required. In the present study the questionnaire developers starts content validity process with a set of 122 items by computing Content Validity Index (CVI) using judges' ratings on each item by considering the item's 'relevancy and clarity' rated by the panel of seven subject experts. Their ratings were used to calculate the Item level content validity index (I-CVI) and scale level content validity index (S-CVI). Scale level content validity index (S-CVI) was calculated by using the average approach. On the basis of the I-CVI, decision for retaining, retaining, revising and excluding the items was taken. Modified kappa was also performed for adjusting chance agreement from the degree of agreement. The final SPQ contained 120 items.

Keywords


Content Validity, Spiritual Practices Questionnaire, Content Validity Index for Items (I-CVI).

References