Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement Issues in Quantitative Research

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences

Abstract

Measurement is central to empirical research whether observational or experimental. Common to all measurements is the systematic application of numerical value (scale) to a variable or a factor we wish to quantify. Measurement can be applied to physical, biological, or chemical attribute or to more complex factors such as human behaviors, attitudes, physical, social, or psychological characteristics or the combination of several characteristics that denote a concept. There are many reasons for the act of measurement that are relevant to health and social science disciplines: for understanding aetiology of disease or developmental processes, for evaluating programs, for monitoring progress, and for decision-making. Regardless of the specific purpose, we should aspire that our measurement be adequate. In this chapter, we review the properties that determine the adequacy of our measurement (reliability, validity, and sensitivity) and provide examples of statistical methods that are used to quantify these properties. At the concluding section, we provide examples from the physical activity and public health field in the four areas for which precise measurements are necessary illustrating how imprecise or biased scoring procedure can lead to erroneous decisions across the four major purposes of measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bolarinwa OA. Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2015;22(4):195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Key issues in the statistical analysis of quantitative data in research on health and health services. In: Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis. England: Open University Press McGraw Hill Education Birshire; 2005. p. 497–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brink H. Validity and reliability in qualitative research. Curationis. 1993;16(2):35–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown WJ, Trost SG, Bauman A, Mummery K, Owen N. Test-retest reliability of four physical activity measures used in population. J Sci Med Sport. 2004;7(2):205–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownson RC, Jones DA, Pratt M, Blanton C, Heath GW. Measuring physical activity with the behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(11):1913–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busija L, Pausenberger E, Haines TP, Haymes S, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH. Adult measures of general health and health-related quality of life: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-Item (SF-12) Health Surveys, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes study Short Form 36-Item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-Item (SF-12) Health Surveys, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL). Arthritis Care and Research. 2011;63(Supll S11):S383–S4121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerin E, Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Neighborhood environment walkability scale: validity and development of a short form. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(9):1682–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis RE, Couper MP, Janz NK, Caldwell CH, Resnicow K. Interviewer effects in public health surveys. Health Educ Res. 2009;25(1):14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruin A, Diederiks J, De Witte L, Stevens F, Philipsen H. Assessing the responsiveness of a functional status measure: the Sickness Impact Profile versus the SIP68. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(5):529–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(8):635–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(11):897–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12((4):S142–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37:830–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fok CCT, Henry D. Increasing the sensitivity of measures to change. Prev Sci. 2015;16(7):978–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadotti I, Vieira E, Magee D. Importance and clarification of measurement properties in rehabilitation. Braz J Phys Ther. 2006;10(2):137–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2003;8(4):597–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant JS, Davis LL. Focus on quantitative methods: Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing and Health. 1997;20:269–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths P, Rafferty AM. Outcome measures (Gerrish K, Lathlean J, Cormack D, editors), 7th ed. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris T, Kerry SM, Limb ES, Victor CR, Iliffe S, Ussher M, … Cook DG. Effect of a primary care walking intervention with and without nurse support on physical activity levels in 45- to 75-year-olds: the Pedometer And Consultation Evaluation (PACE-UP) cluster randomised clinical trial. PLoS Med. 2016;14(1):e1002210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002210.

  • Heale R, Twycross A. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evid Based Nurs. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129.

  • Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimberlin CL, Winetrstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65(23):2276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Last MJ. A dictionary of epidemiology. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2015;4(3):324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manoj S, Lingyak P. Measurement and evaluation for health educators. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merom D, Korycinski R. Measurement of walking. In: Mulley C, Gebel K, Ding D, editors. Walking, vol. 11–39. West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Publishing; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merom D, Rissel C, Phongsavan P, Smith BJ, van Kemenade C, Brown W, Bauman A. Promoting walking with pedometers in the community. The step-by-step trial. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(4):290–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merom D, Bowles H, Bauman A. Measuring walking for physical activity surveillance – the effect of prompts and respondents’ interpretation of walking in a leisure time survey. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6:S81–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunan D. Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt S, Bullinger M. Current issues in cross-cultural quality of life instrument development. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84(Suppl 2):S29–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamatakis E, Ekelund U, Wareham NJ. Temporal trends in physical activity in England: the Health Survey for England 1991 to 2004. Prev Med. 2007;45:416–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terwee C, Dekker F, Wiersinga W, Prummel M, Bossuyt P. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(4):349–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike RM. Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ursachi G, Horodnic IA, Zait A. How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2015;20:679–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters SJ. Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation, vol. 84. West Yorkshire, UK: Wiley; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winzenberg T, Shaw KS. Screening for physical activity in general practice a test of diagnostic criteria. Aust Fam Physician. 2011;40(1):57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu S, Yarnell JW, Sweetnam PM, Murray L. What level of physical activity protects against premature cardiovascular death? The Caerphilly study. Heart. 2003;89(5):502–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Sydeny, NSW, Australia

    Dafna Merom

  2. Translational Health Research Institute, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    Dafna Merom & James Rufus John

  3. Capital Markets Cooperative Research Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    James Rufus John

Authors
  1. Dafna Merom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Rufus John
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dafna Merom .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Health, Locked Bag 1797, CA.02.35, Western Sydney Univ, School of Science & Health, Locked Bag 1797, CA.02.35, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia

    Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Merom, D., John, J.R. (2018). Measurement Issues in Quantitative Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_95-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_95-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2779-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Social SciencesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation