Why Does Construct Validity Matter in Measuring Implementation Fidelity? A Methodological Case Study

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2021-03-15 DOI:10.1177/1534508421998772
W. van Dijk, A. Huggins-Manley, Nicholas A. Gage, Holly B. Lane, Michael D. Coyne
{"title":"Why Does Construct Validity Matter in Measuring Implementation Fidelity? A Methodological Case Study","authors":"W. van Dijk, A. Huggins-Manley, Nicholas A. Gage, Holly B. Lane, Michael D. Coyne","doi":"10.1177/1534508421998772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In reading intervention research, implementation fidelity is assumed to be positively related to student outcomes, but the methods used to measure fidelity are often treated as an afterthought. Fidelity has been conceptualized and measured in many different ways, suggesting a lack of construct validity. One aspect of construct validity is the fidelity index of a measure. This methodological case study examined how different decisions in fidelity indices influence relative rank ordering of individuals on the construct of interest and influence our perception of the relation between the construct and intervention outcomes. Data for this study came from a large state-funded project to implement multi-tiered systems of support for early reading instruction. Analyses were conducted to determine whether the different fidelity indices are stable in relative rank ordering participants and if fidelity indices of dosage and adherence data influence researcher decisions on model building within a multilevel modeling framework. Results indicated that the fidelity indices resulted in different relations to outcomes with the most commonly used fidelity indices for both dosage and adherence being the worst performing. The choice of index to use should receive considerable thought during the design phase of an intervention study.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1534508421998772","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508421998772","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In reading intervention research, implementation fidelity is assumed to be positively related to student outcomes, but the methods used to measure fidelity are often treated as an afterthought. Fidelity has been conceptualized and measured in many different ways, suggesting a lack of construct validity. One aspect of construct validity is the fidelity index of a measure. This methodological case study examined how different decisions in fidelity indices influence relative rank ordering of individuals on the construct of interest and influence our perception of the relation between the construct and intervention outcomes. Data for this study came from a large state-funded project to implement multi-tiered systems of support for early reading instruction. Analyses were conducted to determine whether the different fidelity indices are stable in relative rank ordering participants and if fidelity indices of dosage and adherence data influence researcher decisions on model building within a multilevel modeling framework. Results indicated that the fidelity indices resulted in different relations to outcomes with the most commonly used fidelity indices for both dosage and adherence being the worst performing. The choice of index to use should receive considerable thought during the design phase of an intervention study.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么结构有效性在衡量实现保真度中很重要?方法论案例研究
在阅读干预研究中,实施保真度被认为与学生成绩呈正相关,但用于测量保真度的方法往往被视为事后的想法。保真度已被概念化和测量在许多不同的方式,表明缺乏结构效度。构念效度的一个方面是测量的保真度指数。本方法学案例研究考察了保真度指数的不同决策如何影响个体对兴趣构念的相对等级排序,以及影响我们对兴趣构念与干预结果之间关系的感知。本研究的数据来自一个大型的国家资助项目,该项目旨在实施多层次的早期阅读教学支持系统。分析确定不同的保真度指数在相对等级排序的参与者中是否稳定,以及剂量和依从性数据的保真度指数是否影响研究者在多层次建模框架内建立模型的决策。结果表明,保真度指数与结果的关系不同,最常用的剂量和依从性保真度指数表现最差。在干预研究的设计阶段,使用指标的选择应得到充分的考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families. Does Resilience Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Self-Image and Psychological Distress in Middle-Aged and Older Gay and Bisexual Men? Intergenerational Relations and Well-being Among Older Middle Eastern/Arab American Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Caregiving Appraisals and Emotional Valence: Moderating Effects of Activity Participation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1