Research Instruments

Ways Of Choosing For Research Instruments

(Nalzaro, 2012)
• Read professional journals to learn what kind of instruments are being
used for similar studies, their format, style, and how they are used by the
writers.
• Read books that provide a description or an actual copy of various
instruments for the reader.
• Talk with other researchers who may know of certain tools they have
developed for themselves, or may have used tools developed by others.
• Combine or adapt one or more tools used by other researchers.
• Develop one’s own instrument to fulfill a specific need.
Characteristics Of A Good Research Instruments
Calderon (1993)
• The instrument must be valid and reliable.
• It must be based upon the conceptual framework or what the
researcher wants to find out.
• It must gather data suitable for and relevant to the research topic.
• It must gather data that would test the hypotheses or answer the
questions under investigation.
• It should be free from all kinds of bias.
Characteristics Of A Good Research Instruments
Calderon (1993)
• It must contain only question or items that are unequivocal.
• It must contain clear and definite directions to accomplish it.
• If the instrument is a mechanical device, it must be of the best or
latest model.
• It must be accompanied by a good cover letter.
• It must be accompanied, if possible, by letter of recommendation
from a sponsor.
General Criteria of Good Research Instruments
Falatado, et al. (2016)
 A. Validity
Validity refers to the extent to which the instrument measures
what it intends to measure and performs as it is designed to
perform. It is unusual and nearly impossible that an instrument
is 100% valid that is why validity is generally measured in
degrees. As a process, validation involves collecting and
analyzing data to assess the accuracy of an instrument. There
are numerous statistical tests and measures to assess the
validity of quantitative instruments that generally involves pilot
testing.
Types of Validity
❑Content Validity
❑Criterion- Related Validity
❖Convergent validity
❖Divergent validity
❖Predictive validity
❑Construct Validity
 1) Content Validity
Content validity primarily focuses on the appropriateness, authenticity and
representativeness of the items of the test to measure the behavior or
characteristics to be investigated. This normally determined after a group of
experts on the subject matter has examined systematically the test items.
These items are pilot tested and hereafter certain statistical calculations can
be done on the results depending on the type and purpose of the test. Item
analysis, for example may be done with respect to achievement tests to
determine the difficulty and discrimination indices of each item. Difficulty
index describes how easy or difficult the test items are. The discrimination
index gives the ability of each item to identify those who know and do not
know the items.
 2) Criterion-Related Validity
Criterion-related validity is achieved by determining the
effectiveness of the test to measure results against a given set
of criteria or standards. In achievement or performance test,
the desired competencies are used as the criteria. This type of
validity is better understood statistically. A criterion is any
other instrument that measures the same variable.
Correlations can be conducted to determine the extent to
which the different instruments measure the same variable.
Ways to measure Criterion Validity

❑Convergent Validity
❑Divergent Validity
❑Predictive Validity
 a) Convergent Validity
Convergent validity shows that an instrument is
highly correlated with instruments measuring
similar variables.

Example: geriatric suicide correlated significantly

and positively with depression, loneliness and
hopelessness.
 b) Divergent Validity
Divergent validity shows that an instrument is
poorly correlated to instruments that measure
different variables.

Example: There should be a low correlation

between an instrument that measures motivation
and one that measure self-efficacy.
 c) Predictive Validity
Predictive validity means that the instrument
should have high correlation with future
criterions.

Example: A score of high self-efficacy related to

performing a task that should predict the likehood
of a participant completing the task.
 3) Construct Validity

Construct validity refers to whether you can draw

inferences about test scores related to the concept
being studied. The extent of a test to appropriate its
ability to demonstrate a particular theoretical
construct or development characteristics or indicator is
described by the materials’ construct validity.
 Evidences of Construct Validity
➢Homogeneity - means that the instrument measures one
construct.
➢Convergence - occurs when the instrument measures
concepts similar to that of other instruments. Although if
there are no similar instruments available, this will not be
possible to do.
➢Theory Evidence - is evident when behavior is similar to
theoretical proposition of the construct measured in the
instrument.
 B. Reliability
Reliability relates to the extent to which the instrument is consistent. The
instruments should be able to obtain the same response when applied to
respondents who are similarly situated. Likewise, when instrument is applied at
two different points in time, the responses must highly correlate with one
another. Hence, reliability can be measured by correlating the responses of
subjects exposed to the instrument at two different time periods or by correlating
the responses of the subjects who are situated. An example of this is when a
participant completing an instrument meant to measure motivation should have
approximately the same responses each time the test is completed. Although it is
not possible to give an exact calculation of reliability, an estimate of reliability can
be achieved through different measures.
Attributes of Reliability
❑Internal Consistency or Homogeneity
❖Alternate - Form Reliability
❖Split - Half Reliability
❖Inter - Rater or Scorer Reliability
❖Inter-Item Correlation
❑Stability or Test-Retest Correlation
❑Equivalence Reliability
 Internal Consistency or Homogeneity
Internal consistency or homogeneity is when
an instrument measures a specific concept.
This concept is through question or
indicators and each question must correlate
highly with the total for this dimension.
 Ways to Check Homogeneity of the Index
❑In , at least two forms of test on a subject
matter are prepared and administered once to a common group. The
test results are also subjected to test of correlation. The computed
coefficient correlation becomes the reliability index.
❑In , the material is administered also one to a
group of test - takers. The results are splits into halves and these are
compared. A test of relationship is calculated using the Spearman -
Brown formula. The index of reliability results from this calculation
 Ways to Check Homogeneity of the Index

❑The is another measure of

reliability, where at least two scorer separately review and
score a set of sampled test papers. Their independent scores
are tested for relationship. The resulting coefficient of
correlation becomes the inter - rater reliability index.
❑The is based on a single form and
administration of the test. Kuder - Richardson formula is used
in calculating the inter - item reliability index of the test.
 Stability or Test-Retest Correlation
Stability or test - retest correlation this is an aspect of reliability where
many researchers report that a highly reliable test indicates that the
test is stable over time. Test - retest correlation provides an indication
of stability over time. It is an extent to which scores on a test are
essentially invariant over time. This definition clearly focuses on the
measurement instrument and the obtained test scores in terms of test -
retest stability. An example of this is when we ask the respondents in
our sample the four questions once in the month of September and
again in December. We can examine whether the two waves of the
same measures yield similar results.
 Equivalence Reliability
Equivalence reliability is measured by the correlation of scores
between different versions of the same instruments or between
instruments that measure the same or similar constructs, such that one
instrument can be reproduced by the other. If we want to know the
extent to which different investigators use the same instrument to
measure the same individuals at the same time yield consistent results.
Equivalence may also be estimated by measuring the same concepts
with different instruments, for example, survey questionnaire and
official records, on the same sample, which is known as multiple -
forms reliability.
 Ways to Improve Reliability
• By standardizing the conditions under which the
measurement takes place i.e., we must ensure that external
sources of variation such as boredom, fatigue, etc., are
minimized to the extent possible. That will improve stability
aspect.

Kothari (2004)
 Ways to Improve Reliability
• By carefully designed directions for measurement with no
variation from group to group, by using trained and
motivated persons to conduct the research and also by
broadening the sample of items used. This will improve
equivalence aspect.

Kothari (2004)
 3. Practicality

The practicality characteristic of a research instrument

can be judged in terms of economy, convenience and
interpretability. From the operational point of view,
the research instrument ought to be practical i.e., it
should be economical, convenient and interpretable.
 Criteria on Practicality
Economy consideration suggests that some trade-off is
needed between the ideal research project and that which
the budget can afford. The length of measuring instrument is
an important area where economic pressures are quickly felt.
Although more items give greater reliability as stated earlier,
but in the interest of limiting the interview or observation
time, we have to take only few items for our study purpose.
Similarly, data-collection methods to be used are also
dependent at times upon economic factors.
 Criteria on Practicality
Convenience test suggests that the measuring
instrument should be easy to administer. For this
purpose one should give due attention to the proper
layout of the research instrument. For instance, a
questionnaire, with clear instructions (illustrated by
examples), is certainly more effective and easier to
complete than one which lacks these features.
 Criteria on Practicality
Interpretability consideration is especially important
when persons other than the designers of the test are
to interpret the results. The research instrument, in
order to be interpretable, must be supplemented by
detailed instructions for administering the test, scoring
keys, evidence about the reliability, and guides for
using the test and for interpreting results.