Reliability and Validity Assignment | Online Assignment

This is a report assignment on the reliability and validity of the SDQ questionnaire. It’s divided into 3 parts, however, the final product is just 1 thing. You have to do an analysis of some data in SPSS and then write a report. The attached document “MTAI Assignment” contains all the necessary information. I have also attached the two data sets for reliability and validity

General information

 

The final assignment is the combination of three partial reports. The first partial report is about your research into the reliability of the SDQ questionnaire. The second partial report is about your research into the validity of the SDQ questionnaire. For the final, third, part, you apply the knowledge you have gained about the reliability and validity of the SDQ to the scores of 1 individual on the SDQ questionnaire, and will use the constructed norms to classify and interpret the confidence intervals of this individual.

Specific information with regard to what is exactly expected for which part of the report, is written below per partial report. For Partial Report I the max. is 2 pages, for Partial Report II the max is 4 pages, and for Partial Report III the max is 1 page, all with font Times New Roman (font size 12) and 1.5 line spacing.

What you ultimately submit as your final assignment (max. 7 pages, the exact distribution per Partial Report does not matter) is (in appropriate order):

– Introduction about reliability and validity *

– Methods & Results reliability *

– Methods & Results validity *

– Discussion about reliability and validity *

– Research report assigned participant

On the components with an asterisk you will receive feedback from your tutor once. On the last part you will receive peer feedback from a fellow student and general feedback from your tutor.

It is important to pay attention when you have to submit something.
It is explained below per Partial Report, but overall it is:

 

– Partial Report I

Methods Reliability

Results Reliability

 

– Partial Report II

Introduction about reliability and validity

Methods Validity

Validity results

Discussion about reliability and validity

 

– Partial Report III

Research report assigned participant

Partial Report I – The reliability of the SDQ questionnaire

Max. 2 pages

 

To assess the reliability of a questionnaire, you will first practice this during the home assignment of week 1. In the tutorial of week 2, you will work on the actual SDQ questionnaire. You will find the step-by-step protocol for assessing the reliability in the description of those tutorials.

 

For Partial Report 1, you assess the reliability for the total problem scale and for the Hyperactivity and Prosocial behavior subscales of the SDQ, using Cronbach’s alpha. In addition to the total problem scale, you only look at these 2 subscales and not at the other 3 subscales.

Use the COTAN guideline to determine whether the reliability is sufficient to use the SDQ as we would like: As a test for making important decisions at the individual level!

 

For the Partial Report I, you can use the layout discussed below. You have to include the following sections:

– Methods reliability

– Results reliability

 

Note: You do not have to write an introduction and discussion for this partial report. However, for Partial Report II you have to write an introduction and discussion that is for both the reliability analyses and the validity analyses. It is therefore strongly advised to start on these two sections early on, so that you only have to insert the validity components for Partial Report II in the introduction and discussion.

 

Methods

The most important thing about this section is that it is a very clear and correct description of your study, allowing other researchers to replicate it. Therefore, this section needs to have a clear structure, covering each aspect of what you have done. Make sure that it contains the following (in this order):

• A description of all the relevant information about your sample: how old are your participants, are they boys/girls?
• A description of your instrument: how many items does it contain, are there subscales and how are these constructed, how are scores obtained, are items recoded, etc.? Providing examples is always useful!

Note: you only need to provide this information for the total problem scale and the Hyperactivity and Prosocial behavior subscales.

• A description of your statistical approach: explain, clearly and in chronological order, what you do and which variables you use for that. Indicate which type of reliability you assess, and how you do this.

 

 

Results

The main point of this section is to give a correct and complete overview of your findings. So, this part of the report addresses the results of the analyses you have conducted to assess the reliability of the total problem scale and the Hyperactivity and Prosocial behavior subscales of the SDQ questionnaire. This means that different aspects should be discussed, e.g. the calculation of the internal consistency (alpha), but also item analyses when notable items are present. Make sure that you cover the following aspects in this section:

• The outcomes of your tests, e.g. Cronbach’s alpha
• The outcomes of your item-analyses. Give a complete report – i.e. do not just report the final result but report means and standard deviations, inter-item correlations, item-total correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha-if-item-deleted for at least 1 notable item (this can be in a table). This way, it is crystal clear for the reader what you exactly found, and whether your conclusions in the discussion are supported by the data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partial Report II – The validity of the SDQ questionnaire

Max. 4 pages

To assess the validity of a questionnaire, you will first do so for one type of validity as the home assignment for week 3. After that, in week 4’s tutorial, you will work on the other two types of validity. You will find the step-by-step protocol for assessing the validity in the description of those tutorials.

 

For Partial Report II you investigate three different forms of validity for the Hyperactivity subscale of the SDQ: convergent, discriminant and criterion-related validity. You do not have to do this for the other subscales. Normally you should of course do this, but it will be a lot of repetitive work for the assignment so we will not do it.

 

For the Partial Report II, you can use the layout discussed below. You have to following sections:

– Overarching introduction (reliability & validity)

– Methods validity

– Results validity

– Overarching discussion (reliability & validity)

 

Note: For this partial report you have to write an introduction and discussion, which covers both the reliability analyses from Partial Report I and the current validity analyses. It is thus a general introduction of your study into the reliability and validity of the SDQ.

 

Introduction

The most important thing about this section is that it provides the reader with a clear background of the instrument (i.e. the SDQ questionnaire) and that it explains the relevance of the assessment of this instrument. Clearly state what reliability is, how you are going to study it, and for which (sub)scales. Also, clearly state which types of validity you are going to investigate, how you will do that, and with which other instruments. And of course why these studies are relevant. Also make sure that you briefly name all instruments, so that it is clear to the reader what you are comparing / analyzing.

 

Make sure you discuss the following points (In any order):

• What is the SDQ questionnaire supposed to measure, what do you supposedly assessed with the total problem scale, the Hyperactive subscale and the Prosocial behavior subscale?
• Why could the SDQ be a valuable instrument?
• For which specific group(s) could it be a suitable instrument?
• What are the aim and the relevance of your assessment?
• Why do we need to assess the reliability and the validity?
• Which kinds of validity will you assess? What are the differences?
• What are you supposedly assessing with the comparative instruments that you use to determine the validity of the Hyperactivity subscale?
• What are the aim and the relevance of your study?
• Make sure to use at least 3 references in your introduction.
• You do not have to formulate hypotheses.

 

Methods

The main point of this section is that it gives a very clear and correct explanation of your study, allowing other researchers to replicate it. Therefore, this section needs to have a clear structure, covering each aspect of what you have done. Make sure that it contains the following (in this order):

• A description of the size of your sample for each of the analyses. Note: you do not need to provide detailed information on the groups, such as age/sex/ etc..
• A description of the instruments that you used: how many questions does it contain, are there subscales and how are these constructed, how are scores obtained, etc.? Providing examples is always useful! Do so only for the used instruments (or subscales): not for all instruments in the dataset.
• A description of your statistical approach: explain, clearly and in chronological order, what you do and which variables you use for that. Indicate which forms of validity you assess, and how you do this.

 

Results

The main point of this section is to give a correct overview of your findings. So, this part of the report addresses the results of the analyses you have conducted to assess the validity of the Hyperactivity subscale of the SDQ. This means that different aspects will be discussed, because you have assessed different types of validity. Make sure that you cover the following aspects in this section:

• The outcomes of your tests, e.g. correlation coefficients

 

Discussion

The most important thing about this section is that you give a clear overview of your findings, and that you integrate the findings on reliability with those on validity. It is as if you step onto a ladder to view your results from a distance, to see the general picture; and to interpret and discuss the findings on a higher level. In this section, you also refer back to the introduction: in that section, you have discussed the context and relevance of your study and you have argued what should be accomplished and how this should be done. In the discussion, you provide an answer and draw a conclusion. Make sure you discuss the following points:

• Briefly, what was the angle/relevance of your study?
• Answer the research question: what do the results show? How can you interpret this in terms of the reliability and the validity of the SDQ parts you studied?
• Think carefully about possible explanations for your findings: e.g. if you found that something was not reliable, what could be the reason for this? What are possible explanations and / or solutions for notable items? If you advise, for example, to delete an item, also substantiate why.
• And if you found something to be reliable, what does this mean for its use?
• What do your findings on reliability mean in the context of using the instrument?
• If you found that something was not valid, what could be the reason for this? Are there any explanations and / or solutions for this?
• Are there differences between the three types of assessed validity in terms of outcome?
• Take a critical look at your study: which aspects could or should be improved, or which aspects prevent you from being very certain in your conclusions? How could this be prevented in future research? Give concrete suggestions for a follow-up study.
• Conclude with a clear final conclusion: make sure you briefly summarize what your findings mean in the last paragraph, so both how reliable and valid the SDQ is. Carefully consider what your take-home message is, so what is it that you want the reader to really remember from your study?
• Be sure that at least 1 new reference in your discussion (that is not yet mentioned in your introduction).

 

 

 

Partial Report III – The scores of an individual on the SDQ questionnaire, interpretation of these scores

Max. 1 page (excluding norm tables)

 

To be able to correctly interpret an individual’s test score, it is necessary to be able to determine what a score actually means. For this you want to know what the true score of an individual is, but that is not possible: you have to estimate it. For a good estimation you need the individual’s test score, the confidence interval of the scores of the individual and norm tables to be able to classify the scores.

 

For this assignment you will write a report about the score on the SDQ questionnaire of the individual that is assigned to you. You must report both the classifications on the total problem scale and on the 5 subscales. The aspects that need to be addressed in this part of your report are, at minimum:

• Sex and age of the individual
• The required scores, with which you demonstrate your professional judgement (think about which scores you should report)
• An interpretation of the scores, whereby you describe individual X as a person rather than a mere collection of numbers
• Keep in mind that you write the report for the individual and her/his parents, so do not use jargon.
• Do not forget to add to norm tables in the appendix of your report!

 

 

 

 

 

Final Assignment

Max. 7 pages (excluding norm tables, excluding title page)

 

Combine all three previous assignments. Also, create a Title page and then order the separate partial reports as follows:

What you ultimately submit as your final assignment (max. 7 pages, the exact distribution per partial report does not matter) is in correct order:

 

– Overarching introduction on reliability and validity

– Methods & Results reliability

– Methods & Results validity

– Overarching discussion on reliability and validity

– Research report assigned participant

 

Make sure that you have adequately processed the feedback that you received from the tutor (Partial Reports I and II) and your fellow student (Partial Report III). And: ask your tutor or mail the coordinator with questions!