測量工具的效度與信度

Validity and Reliability of an Instrument

10.6288/TJPH2004-23-04-02

李中一(Chung-Yi Li)

信度 ； 效度 ； 流行病學 ； 偏差 ； 測量誤差 ； Reliability ； Validity ； Epidemiology ； Bias ； Measurement error

台灣公共衛生雜誌

23卷4期（2004 / 08 / 01）

272 - 281

繁體中文

目標：介紹測量工具的信度與效度概念與評估的方法，討論使用缺乏信度與效度的工具對研究結果的影響，並針對某些測量實務上的議題提出建議。<BR>方法：透過文獻探討，摘要其內容，列舉實例或假想之數據，說明測量工具的信度與效度概念及其評估方法。<BR>結果：測量工具效度的高低取決於測量所牽涉系統誤差大小，而信度大小則與隨機誤差有關；評估測量工具信效度的方法依測量資料的屬性而定，而流行病學研究將會因為所使用測量工具的信效度不完善而產生訊息偏差，此偏差的程度與方向則與測量誤差的本質有關。<BR>結論：研究者在使用測量工具前有必要選擇適當的方法評估其相關之效度與信度，以了解使用該測量工具對研究結果的可能影響，如此方能對研究結果作正確的闡釋。

Objectives: This paper illustrates the concept of validity and reliability associated with an instrument and how the validity and reliability are assessed. We also included a discussion on how an instrument with unsatisfactory validity and reliability may affect study results, and provide suggestions for certain practical problems encountered by investigators.<BR>Methods: We reviewed the literature and provided real-world or hypothetical examples.<BR>Results: The level of validity of an instrument is related to the magnitude of systematic errors associated with that instrument, while the level of magnitude of reliability is determined solely by the degree of random errors involved in the measurement. The choices of methods used for the assessment of validity and reliability depend on the attribute of research data. Results from epidemiological studies that used an instrument with non-perfect validity and reliability might entail certain degrees of bias, for which the direction and magnitude are associated with the nature of measurement errors.<BR>Conclusions: Researchers should assess, using appropriate methods, the validity and reliability of an instrument before it can be used. This would help to appreciate the potential effects on the study results caused by measurement errors, and lead to correct interpretations of the study results.

1. 全中妤、杜宗禮、葉文裕、李中一(2002)。台灣旅館業餐飲人員工作動作特性與肌肉骨骼傷病之橫斷式研究。台灣衛誌，21，140-9。
   連結：
2. Bland JM,Altman DG(1986).Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.Lancet,1,307-310.
3. Cohen J(1960).A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educ Psychol Meas,20,37-46.
4. Cohen J(1968).Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.Psychol Bull,70,213-220.
5. Copeland KT,Checkoway H,McMichael AJ,Holbrook RH(1977).Bias due to misclassification in the estimation of relative risk.Am J Epidemiol,105,488-495.
6. Correa-Villaseñor A,Stewart WF,FrancoMarina F,Seacat H(1995).Bias from non-differential misclassification in case-control studies with three exposure levels.Epidemiology,6,276-281.
7. Coughlin MT,LaPorte RE,O`Leary LA,Lee PA(1998).How accurate is male recall of reproductive information?.Am J Epidemiol,148,806-9.
8. Fleiss JL(1975).Measuring agreement between two judges on the presence or absence of a trait.Biometrics,31,651-9.
9. Gullen WH,Bearman JE,Johnson EA(1968).Effects of misclassification in epidemiologic studies.Public Health Rep,83,914-8.
10. Kaplan RM,Saccuzzo P(1989).Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues.Pacific Grove, Calif:Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.
11. Kelsey JL,Thompson WD,Evans AS(1986).Methods in Occupational Epidemiology.New York:Oxford University Press.
12. Li CY,Chen KR,Wu CH,Sung FC(2001).Job stress and dissatisfaction in relation to the development of nonfatal injuries on the job among a cross-sectional sample of petrochemical workers.Occup Med,51,50-55.
13. Li CY,Sung FC,Wu SC(2002).Risk of cognitive impairment in relation to elevated exposure to electromagnetic fields.J Occup Environ Med,44,66-72.
14. Li CY,Thériault G,Lin RS(1997).A validity analysis of residential magnetic fields estimated from high-voltage transmission lines.J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol,7,493-504.
15. Lin L(1989).A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.Biometrics,45,255-268.
16. Lin L,Hedayat AS,Sinha B,Yang M(2002).Statistical methods in assessing agreement: models, issues, and tools.J Am Stat Assoc,97,257-270.
17. Maclure M,Willett W(1987).Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic.Am J Epidemiol,126,161-9.
18. Newbie DI,Hoare J,Sheldrake PF(1980).The selection and training of examiners for clinical examinations.Med Edu,4,345-9.
19. Newell D J(1962).Errors in the interpretation of errors in epidemiology.Am J Public Health,52,1925-28.
20. Rookus MA,van Leeuwen FE(1996).Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Duch case-control study.J Natl Cancer Inst,88,1759-64.
21. Rothman KJ(1986).Modern Epidemiology.Boston:Little, Brown and Company.
22. Streiner DL,Norman GR(1989).Health Measurement Scales-A Practical Guide to their Development and Use.New York:Oxford University Press.
23. Streiner DL,Norman GR(1989).Health Measurement Scales-A Practical Guide to their Development and Use,106-125.
24. Thériault G,Li CY(1997).Risks of leukemia among residents close to high voltage transmission electric lines.Occup Environ Med,54,625-8.
25. Wu SC,Li CY,Ke DS(2000).The agreement between self-reporting and clinical diagnosis for selected medical conditions among the elderly in Taiwan.Public Health,114,137-142.
26. 王榮德(1990)。流行病學方法論－猜測與否證的研究。
27. 台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷發展小組(2000)。台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷之發展簡介。中華衛誌，19，315-324。
28. 危止芬(1999)。心理測驗。台北:雙葉書廊有限公司。
29. 李中一、張恭賀、馮兆康、吳淑瓊(1999)。職業別譯碼之一致性分析。中華衛誌，18，255-261。
30. 林清山(1999)。心理與教育統計學。台北:台灣東華書局股份有限公司。
31. 姚開屏(2001)。台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷之發展及使用手冊。

1. 蔡長書,陳懿芳,周柏希(2017)。以操作型技巧直接觀察評量方式探討醫事放射臨床學習成效。慈濟科技大學學報，4期=總2，89-112。
2. 許勝懋、洪百薰、洪永泰(2011)。臺灣健康危害行為監測系統之信度分析。調查研究：方法與應用，26，123-159。
3. 黃慧娜、黃昱瞳、黃光華、洪錦墩、施雅文(2010)。台灣醫務管理期刊研究論文分析。醫務管理期刊，11(1)，16-32。
4. 吳志正(2008)。以疫學手法作為民事因果關係認定之檢討。東吳法律學報，20(1)，205-236。
5. 鍾秉辰,金大仁(2019)。顯示器IC設計公司工作環境肌肉骨骼健康危害分析與改善方法探討。工業安全衛生，359，26-49。
6. (2007)。蹲距式膝關節本體感覺信度研究。國立臺灣體育學院學報，20，333-348。