Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
a Department of Public Health Sciences St George's Hospital Medical School London SW17 0RE, b ICRF Medical Statistics Group Centre for Statistics in Medicine Institute of Health Sciences PO Box 777 Oxford OX3 7LF
Correspondence to: Professor Bland
| Article |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Many quantities of interest in medicine, such as anxiety or degree of handicap, are impossible to measure explicitly. Instead, we ask a series of questions and combine the answers into a single numerical value. Often this is done by simply adding a score from each answer. For example, the mini-HAQ is a measure of impairment developed for patients with cervical myelopathy.1 This has 10 items (table 1)) recording the degree of difficulty experienced in carrying out daily activities. Each item is scored from 1 (no difficulty) to 4 (can't do). The scores on the 10 items are summed to give the mini-HAQ score.
|
When items are used to form a scale they need to have internal consistency. The items should all measure the same thing, so they should be correlated with one another. A useful coefficient for assessing internal consistency is Cronbach's alpha.2 The formula is:
where k is the number of items, s
will be undefined.
The coefficient works because the variance of the sum of a group of independent variables
is the sum of their variances. If the variables are positively correlated, the variance of the sum
will be increased. If the items making up the score are all identical and so perfectly correlated,
all the s
s
= 1. On the other hand, if the
items are all independent, then s
s
= 0. Thus
will be 1 if the items are all the same and 0 if none is
related to another.
For the mini-HAQ example, the standard deviations of each item and the total score
are shown in the table. We have
si2 = 11.16, s
which indicates a high degree of consistency.
For scales which are used as research tools to compare groups,
may be less than
in the clinical situation, when the value of the scale for an individual is of interest. For comparing
groups,
values of 0.7 to 0.8 are regarded as satisfactory. For the clinical application,
much higher values of
are needed. The minimum is 0.90, and
=0.95, as
here, is desirable.
In a recent example, McKinley et al devised a
questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction with calls made by general practitioners out of
hours.3 This included eight separate scores, which they
interpreted as measuring constructs such as satisfaction with communication and management,
satisfaction with doctor's attitude, etc. They quoted
for each score, ranging from
0.61 to 0.88. They conclude that the questionnaire has satisfactory internal validity, as five of the
eight scores had
>0.7. In this issue Bosma et al
report similar values, from 0.67 to 0.84, for assessments of three characteristics of the work
environment.4
Cronbach's alpha has a direct interpretation. The items in our test are only some
of the many possible items which could be used to make the total score. If we were to choose two
random samples of k of these possible items, we would
have two different scores each made up of k items. The
expected correlation between these scores is
.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Read all Rapid Responses