Scale development: ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices
Fabiane Frota da Rocha Morgado, Juliana Fernandes Filgueiras Meireles, Clara Mockdece Neves, Ana Carolina Soares Amaral, Maria Elisa Caputo Ferreira
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora Instituto Federal do Sudeste de Minas Gerais
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
The scale development process is critical to building knowledge in human and social sciences. The present paper aimed (a) to provide a systematic review of the published literature regarding current practices of the scale development process, (b) to assess the main limitations reported by the authors in these processes, and (c) to provide a set of recommendations for best practices in future scale development research. Papers were selected in September 2015, with the search terms "scale development" and "limitations" from three databases: Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, with no time restriction. We evaluated 105 studies published between 1976 and 2015. The analysis considered the three basic steps in scale development: item generation, theoretical analysis, and psychometric analysis. The study identified ten main types of limitation in these practices reported in the literature: sample characteristic limitations, methodological limitations, psychometric limitations, qualitative research limitations, missing data, social desirability bias, item limitations, brevity of the scale, difficulty controlling all variables, and lack of manual instructions. Considering these results, various studies analyzed in this review clearly identified methodological weaknesses in the scale development process (e.g., smaller sample sizes in psychometric analysis), but only a few researchers recognized and recorded these limitations. We hope that a systematic knowledge of the difficulties usually reported in scale development will help future researchers to recognize their own limitations and especially to make the most appropriate choices among different conceptions and methodological strategies.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
计算机 / AIPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Cognitive Abilities and Testing
参考文献 138
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 787
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条