内容效度与专家判断:新工作方式的创新模式

María de los Ángeles Flores-Aguilar
{"title":"内容效度与专家判断:新工作方式的创新模式","authors":"María de los Ángeles Flores-Aguilar","doi":"10.35429/jle.2019.4.3.18.28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective is to validate the content of the information collection instrument, through expert judgement and pilot testing. Methodology: Non-experimental, correlational research with a cross-sectional design. The first sample of the expert judgment was composed of 8 experts, the second of 27 employees was used for the pilot test. Unit of measurement: Employees from four Technological Universities of Puebla, studying empowerment, leadership, work routine, collaborative work and innovation. The methodology of the analysis included the Kendall Concordance Coefficient (W), to decide the level of correlation between the experts and we used Cronbach’s Alpha for the statistical analysis of the pilot test to measure the reliability of the measurement scale. The results of the expert judgement showed changes that would improve the clarity of the instrument. The wording would be expressed in third person, the use of technical language would be avoided, with the aim of generalizing understanding in the wording. The identification data would be defined according to the organizational structure of the media unit. Kendall's coefficient and Cronbach's Alpha showed acceptable agreement. Discussion. It is important to control the application of these tests with strict adherence to the methodology, minimizing human bias. It is concluded that the content validity represents an elemental tool to evidence the dominance and representativeness of the constructs. If the results are not reached, it is possible to repeat the process until acceptable values are reached. It is proposed to improve the instrument as a result of the experts' judgment and check the concordance between experts.","PeriodicalId":211674,"journal":{"name":"Journal Law and Economy","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Content validity and expert judgement: innovation model for new ways of working\",\"authors\":\"María de los Ángeles Flores-Aguilar\",\"doi\":\"10.35429/jle.2019.4.3.18.28\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The objective is to validate the content of the information collection instrument, through expert judgement and pilot testing. Methodology: Non-experimental, correlational research with a cross-sectional design. The first sample of the expert judgment was composed of 8 experts, the second of 27 employees was used for the pilot test. Unit of measurement: Employees from four Technological Universities of Puebla, studying empowerment, leadership, work routine, collaborative work and innovation. The methodology of the analysis included the Kendall Concordance Coefficient (W), to decide the level of correlation between the experts and we used Cronbach’s Alpha for the statistical analysis of the pilot test to measure the reliability of the measurement scale. The results of the expert judgement showed changes that would improve the clarity of the instrument. The wording would be expressed in third person, the use of technical language would be avoided, with the aim of generalizing understanding in the wording. The identification data would be defined according to the organizational structure of the media unit. Kendall's coefficient and Cronbach's Alpha showed acceptable agreement. Discussion. It is important to control the application of these tests with strict adherence to the methodology, minimizing human bias. It is concluded that the content validity represents an elemental tool to evidence the dominance and representativeness of the constructs. If the results are not reached, it is possible to repeat the process until acceptable values are reached. It is proposed to improve the instrument as a result of the experts' judgment and check the concordance between experts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":211674,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal Law and Economy\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal Law and Economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35429/jle.2019.4.3.18.28\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal Law and Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35429/jle.2019.4.3.18.28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的是通过专家判断和试点测试来验证信息收集工具的内容。方法:非实验的、横断面设计的相关研究。专家判断的第一个样本由8名专家组成,第二个样本由27名员工组成,进行先导测试。测量单位:来自普埃布拉四所科技大学的员工,学习授权、领导、工作常规、协同工作和创新。分析方法采用肯德尔一致性系数(W)来确定专家之间的相关程度,并采用Cronbach 's Alpha进行统计分析,以衡量测量量表的信度。专家判断的结果显示了将提高该文书清晰度的变化。措词将以第三人称表示,避免使用技术语言,目的是概括措词中的理解。识别数据将根据媒体单位的组织结构来确定。Kendall的系数和Cronbach的Alpha值显示出可接受的一致性。讨论。重要的是要严格遵守方法来控制这些测试的应用,尽量减少人为的偏见。结论是,内容效度是证明构念的优势性和代表性的基本工具。如果没有达到结果,可以重复这个过程,直到达到可接受的值。根据专家的判断结果,提出对仪器进行改进,并检查专家之间的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Content validity and expert judgement: innovation model for new ways of working
The objective is to validate the content of the information collection instrument, through expert judgement and pilot testing. Methodology: Non-experimental, correlational research with a cross-sectional design. The first sample of the expert judgment was composed of 8 experts, the second of 27 employees was used for the pilot test. Unit of measurement: Employees from four Technological Universities of Puebla, studying empowerment, leadership, work routine, collaborative work and innovation. The methodology of the analysis included the Kendall Concordance Coefficient (W), to decide the level of correlation between the experts and we used Cronbach’s Alpha for the statistical analysis of the pilot test to measure the reliability of the measurement scale. The results of the expert judgement showed changes that would improve the clarity of the instrument. The wording would be expressed in third person, the use of technical language would be avoided, with the aim of generalizing understanding in the wording. The identification data would be defined according to the organizational structure of the media unit. Kendall's coefficient and Cronbach's Alpha showed acceptable agreement. Discussion. It is important to control the application of these tests with strict adherence to the methodology, minimizing human bias. It is concluded that the content validity represents an elemental tool to evidence the dominance and representativeness of the constructs. If the results are not reached, it is possible to repeat the process until acceptable values are reached. It is proposed to improve the instrument as a result of the experts' judgment and check the concordance between experts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
LFPDPPP Data privacy Personal data protection Participation of women in the informal economy and their contribution to family income (Case Study: Supply Centers of the City of Sucre) The Privacy and Data Protection in Mexico
×
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