Sentences with phrase «validity of the study problem»

Concurrent validity of the study problem scale was not evaluated owing to the lack of relevant scales.

Not exact matches

Other persistent problems with the validity of studies of caffeine and miscarriage include confounding by smoking and potential recall bias.

[17] This is a big problem for internal validity because we are left with the result that parents who refused participation in the Abecedarian program were less willing or able to commit to a long - term early childhood intervention for their children than the overall population of families who were recruited into the study.

The report deals with this problem by citing two studies that it claims buttress the validity of its own results.

A large scale study of the assessment of the social environment of middle and secondary schools: the validity and utility of teachers» ratings of school climate, cultural pluralism, and safety problems for understanding school effects and school improvement.

The problem here is a lack of control prevents us from being able to test the internal validity of the study.

Results: Reliability and validity of the scale and its four subscales, such as «stop unpleasant emotions and thoughts» (a = 0.92) «used problem - focused coping» (a = 0.71), Self - efficacy on diabetes problem solving (a = 0.74) and «get support from friends and family» (a = 0.67) were approved explicitly by a psychometric analysis; these show that the scale was slightly valid and reliable on the study setting.

The results of these 2 studies demonstrated the reliability, clinical validity, and applicability of the BISQ for screening sleep problems among infants and young children.

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

A problem of the study is that it lacks of population validity.

Interestingly, the promising external validity of the FEEL - KJ has now also received support from two other studies in which relations were shown with binge eating [15], depressive symptoms [14,15], and with the DSM symptom clusters affective problems, somatic problems, conduct problems, and ADHD problems [14].

Apart from generating findings on the internal consistency of the scales of positive youth development, life satisfaction, and problem behaviour, the present study further demonstrated the validity of these constructs via confirmatory factor analyses.

Several studies have addressed the validity of the parent - reported SDQ in school - aged samples, predominantly confirming the intended 5 - factor structure.5, 6 A 3 - factor configuration of externalizing (conduct problems and hyperactivity), internalizing (emotional and peer problems), and prosocial factors has also been proposed and suggested for use in epidemiologic studies and in low - risk populations.7, 8 The internal reliability of SDQ subscales has been predominantly examined by using Cronbach's α, a measure of the interrelatedness of items; however, α estimates are a lower bound for reliability and is often underestimated.9 A meta - analytic review reported weighted mean α coefficients extracted from 26 studies that showed generally modest reliabilities for parent reports (0.53 < α < 0.76).10 McDonald's ω, which estimates the proportion of a scale measuring a construct, typically yields higher reliability estimates but has rarely been used to assess reliability of the SDQ.

Here, we aimed to replicate and extend those initial studies by examining the factor structure, construct validity, and treatment sensitivity of the NSPS in samples of community - based participants with a principal diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD), a principal anxiety disorder diagnosis other than SAD, or no history of psychological problems.

However, an exception could possibly be made for the hyperactivity / inattention problem scale of the SDQ - T; this subscale demonstrated both the highest reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.88) and highest validity (Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.72) in our study.

SDQ total difficulties scores (summed hyperactivity, conduct, emotional, and peer problem scores) were significantly associated with «treatment status» and «presence of any disorder» criteria, supporting concurrent criterion validity of the measure.15, 16 However, each preschool SDQ study was limited to a cross-sectional design, prohibiting examination of factor structure stability over time and validity in predicting future psychopathology.

The strengths of the study include: a naturalistic setting, which increases the external validity of the findings, a multimethod assessment of two outcomes (parenting and child problem behavior), availability of four data points, minimal attrition across waves, and LGM analyses that specified and tested a theoretically based potential mediator of program effects.

Externalizing and internalizing problems were measured via parent report on the Externalizing and Internalizing subscales of the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition — Parent Rating Scales (BASC - 2; Reynolds and Kamphaus 2004), used previously to study emotional and behavioral problems in youth with ASD (Volker et al. 2010), and found to have high internal consistency (α = 0.81 — 0.94), test re-test reliability (r =.88 — .91), and moderate to high concurrent validity (r =.53 to.83; Reynolds and Kamphaus 2004).

Given the limited improvement typically obtained in treatment studies that use peer report measures as outcomes with ADHD samples and the well - documented predictive validity of peer reports for later adjustment, the need for more intensive interventions and novel approaches to address the peer problems of children with ADHD is emphasized.