Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer)

📜
Abstract

The measurement of unobservable psychological, behavioral, and health-related phenomena requires robust methodological tools. Because researchers cannot directly observe Latent Constructs like depression, food insecurity, or self-efficacy, they rely on psychometric scales to capture these complex domains. However, creating a scientifically sound questionnaire is a rigorous, multi-stage endeavor that is often poorly understood or inadequately taught in graduate training programs. This comprehensive framework provides a structured, nine-step methodology for scale development and validation, designed to bridge the gap between advanced psychometric theory and applied research needs.

The framework divides the scale creation process into three overarching phases: item development, scale development, and scale evaluation. By systematically guiding researchers through domain identification, cognitive pre-testing, factor extraction, and rigorous reliability and Validity testing, this primer ensures that newly developed instruments are both theoretically grounded and statistically sound. Ultimately, adhering to these best practices minimizes measurement error and enhances the reproducibility and accuracy of scientific findings across the social and health sciences.

🏷
Keywords
scale development
psychometrics
Validity
reliability
Factor analysis
Latent Constructs
Classical Test Theory

Authors

👤 Godfred O. Boateng
✉ [email protected]
🏛 Northwestern University

👤 Torsten B. Neilands

👤 Edward A. Frongillo

👤 Hugo R. Melgar-Quiñonez

👤 Sera L. Young

Purpose

In the rapidly evolving landscape of behavioral and health sciences, researchers frequently encounter novel research questions that require the measurement of new or highly specific Latent Constructs. Unfortunately, many investigators lack formal training in psychometrics, leading to the proliferation of poorly constructed, unvalidated questionnaires that compromise data integrity. This framework was developed to demystify the complex, jargon-heavy world of scale construction.

By distilling dense psychometric literature into an accessible, step-by-step guide, this primer serves as an essential roadmap for researchers and clinicians. It addresses a critical gap in methodological training, empowering investigators to either build rigorous new instruments from scratch or critically evaluate and adapt existing tools. This standardization of measurement practices is vital for advancing evidence-based practice and ensuring that clinical and research data accurately reflect the human experiences they intend to capture.

Construct

In psychometric theory, a latent construct represents a theoretical variable—such as an attitude, trait, or behavioral tendency—that cannot be directly observed or measured with a single metric. Because these phenomena are abstract, researchers must infer their presence and magnitude by measuring a set of observable indicators or behaviors that are theoretically driven by the underlying construct.

The scale development framework emphasizes that a construct must be unambiguously defined and its theoretical domain carefully mapped before any items are generated. This ensures that the resulting scale captures the entirety of the target phenomenon without bleeding into conceptually adjacent but distinct areas. By using multiple carefully crafted items to tap into different facets of the latent construct, researchers can isolate and account for item-specific measurement error, thereby producing a more precise and reliable composite score.

Validity

Validity testing is framed not as a single hurdle, but as an ongoing, cumulative process that begins at the very inception of a scale. The framework highlights content Validity as the foundational step, requiring expert and target population judges to evaluate whether the initial item pool adequately and exclusively represents the defined construct. This theoretical analysis ensures that the questions are highly relevant and comprehensive before any data is collected.

Once the scale is administered, the evaluation phase shifts to empirical forms of Validity, including criterion and construct Validity. Researchers are guided to examine how well their new scale correlates with established measures (convergent Validity), diverges from unrelated constructs (discriminant Validity), and predicts relevant outcomes. By triangulating these different forms of Validity evidence, developers can confidently assert that their instrument genuinely measures the specific latent dimension it was designed to assess, rather than capturing unintended variance.

Reliability

reliability is conceptualized as the degree to which an instrument yields consistent, stable results under identical conditions. The framework outlines several statistical approaches to quantify this consistency, emphasizing that a scale must be reliable before its Validity can be fully trusted.

While Cronbach's alpha remains the most ubiquitous metric for assessing internal consistency—indicating how well the items within a scale correlate with one another—the primer also introduces alternative and sometimes more robust estimates like McDonald's Omega and ordinal alpha for specific data types. Furthermore, the framework stresses the importance of test-retest reliability (the coefficient of stability) to demonstrate that the latent construct, assuming it is a stable trait, does not spuriously fluctuate across different time points. Together, these metrics ensure that the scale's scores are dependable and relatively free from random measurement error.

Factor Analysis

Factor extraction is a critical analytical phase where the underlying, latent structure of the item pool is empirically revealed. Using Factor analysis, researchers regress observed item responses onto unobserved latent factors to determine how many distinct dimensions are necessary to explain the shared variance among the items. This process helps identify which items strongly cluster together and which ones fail to contribute meaningfully to the measurement model.

The framework advises researchers to use multiple criteria—such as scree plots, variance explained, and parallel analysis—to determine the optimal number of factors to retain. Items that demonstrate weak relationships with the latent factor (typically those with factor loadings below 0.30, which explain less than 10% of the variance) are flagged for removal, while it is generally recommended to retain items with loadings of 0.40 or higher. For unidimensional models utilizing Rasch Item Response Theory, developers should look for mean-square residual summary statistics (infit and outfit) falling between 0.4 and 1.6 to indicate good item fit. Following this exploratory reduction, the framework mandates a rigorous test of dimensionality, often using confirmatory Factor analysis on an independent sample, to verify that the hypothesized factor structure holds true.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Population General population

Figures

Frontiers in Public Health
Figure 1
An overview of the three phases and nine steps of scale d…
Winter ice diving underwater in a quarry in Canada

Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer) Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

📄
Cite This Paper

Godfred O. Boateng, Torsten B. Neilands, Edward A. Frongillo, Hugo R. Melgar-Quiñonez, Sera L. Young (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer). Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
141 references
  1. DeVellis (2012). scale development: Theory and Application.
  2. Raykov (2011). Introduction to Psychometric Theory. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841624
  3. Streiner (2015). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001
  4. McCoach (2013). Instrument Development in the Affective Domain. School and Corporate Applications, 3rd Edn. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7135-6
  5. Morgado (2018). scale development: ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices. Psicol Reflex E Crtica, 30 3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0057-1
  6. Glanz (2015). Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice.
  7. Ajzen (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. 11.
  8. Bai (2008). Validation of a short questionnaire to assess mothers' perception of workplace breastfeeding support. J Acad Nutr Diet, 108 1221. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.018
  9. Hirani (2013). Perceived Breastfeeding Support Assessment Tool (PBSAT): development and testing of psychometric properties with Pakistani urban working mothers. Midwifery, 29 599. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.05.003
  10. Boateng (2018). Matern Child Nutr., 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/mcn.12579
  11. Arbach (2014). reliability and Validity of the center for epidemiologic studies-depression scale in screening for depression among HIV-infected and -uninfected pregnant women attending antenatal services in northern Uganda: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry, 14 303. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0303-y
  12. Natamba (2015). reliability and Validity of an individually focused food insecurity access scale for assessing inadequate access to food among pregnant Ugandan women of mixed HIV status. Public Health Nutr., 18 2895. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980014001669
  13. Neilands (2010). Development and validation of the sexual agreement investment scale. J Sex Res., 47 24. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902916017
  14. Neilands (2002). A validation and reduced form of the female condom attitudes scale. AIDS Educ Prev., 14 158. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.14.2.158.23903
  15. Lippman (2016). Development, validation, and performance of a scale to measure community mobilization. Soc Sci Med., 157 127. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.002
  16. Johnson (2007). The role of self-efficacy in HIV treatment adherence: validation of the HIV treatment adherence self-efficacy scale (HIV-ASES). J Behav Med., 30 359. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9118-3
  17. Sexton (2006). The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research. BMC Health Serv Res., 6 44. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-44
  18. Wolfe (2001). Building household food-security measurement tools from the ground up. Food Nutr Bull., 22 5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/156482650102200102
  19. González (2008). Development and validation of measure of household food insecurity in urban costa rica confirms proposed generic questionnaire. J Nutr., 138 587. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/138.3.587
  20. Boateng (2018). A novel household water insecurity scale: procedures and psychometric analysis among postpartum women in western Kenya. PloS ONE., 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198591
  21. Melgar-Quinonez (2008). Measuring household food security: the global experience. Rev Nutr., 21 27s. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-52732008000700004
  22. Melgar-Quiñonez (2005). Validación de un instrumento para vigilar la inseguridad alimentaria en la Sierra de Manantlán, Jalisco. Salud Pública México, 47 413. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-36342005000600005
  23. Hackett (2008). Internal Validity of a household food security scale is consistent among diverse populations participating in a food supplement program in Colombia. BMC Public Health, 8 175. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-175
  24. Hinkin (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. J Manag., 21 967. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90050-0
  25. Haynes (1995). Content Validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Pyschol Assess., 7 238. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
  26. Kline (1993). A Handbook of Psychological Testing. 2nd Edn.
  27. Hunt (1991). Modern Marketing Theory.
  28. Loevinger (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychol Rep., 3 635. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635
  29. Clarke (1995). Constructing Validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Pyschol Assess, 7 309. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
  30. Schinka (2012). Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 2, Research Methods in Psychology.
  31. Fowler (1995). Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation.
  32. Krosnick (2018). Questionnaire design. 439. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6_53
  33. Krosnick (2009). Question and questionnaire design. 263.
  34. Rhemtulla (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods, 17 354. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
  35. MacKenzie (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q., 35 293. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/23044045
  36. Messick (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performance as scientifica inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol., 50 741. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
  37. Campbell (1959). Convergent and discriminant Validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull., 56 81. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
  38. Dennis (1999). Theoretical underpinnings of breastfeeding confidence: a self-efficacy framework. J Hum Lact., 15 195. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/089033449901500303
  39. Dennis (1999). Development and psychometric testing of the Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale. Res Nurs Health, 22 399. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199910)22:5<399::AID-NUR6>3.0.CO;2-4
  40. Dennis (2003). The breastfeeding self-efficacy scale: psychometric assessment of the short form. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs., 32 734. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0884217503258459
  41. Frongillo (2006). Development and validation of an experience-based measure of household food insecurity within and across seasons in Northern Burkina Faso. J Nutr., 136 1409S. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/136.5.1409S
  42. Guion (1977). Content Validity – the source of my discontent. Appl Psychol Meas., 1 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100103
  43. Lawshe (1975). A quantitative approach to content Validity. Pers Psychol., 28 563. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  44. Lynn (1986). Determination and quantification of content Validity. Nurs Res., 35 382. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
  45. Cohen (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas., 20 37. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  46. Wynd (2003). Two quantitative approaches for estimating content Validity. West J Nurs Res., 25 508. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945903252998
  47. Linstone (1975). The Delphi Method.
  48. Augustine (2012). Psychometric validation of a knowledge questionnaire on micronutrients among adolescents and its relationship to micronutrient status of 15–19-year-old adolescent boys, Hyderabad, India. Public Health Nutr., 15 1182. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012000055
  49. Beatty (2007). Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Q., 71 287. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006
  50. Alaimo (1999). Importance of cognitive testing for survey items: an example from food security questionnaires. J Nutr Educ., 31 269. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182(99)70463-2
  51. Willis (1994). Cognitive Interviewing and Questionnaire Design: A Training Manual. Cognitive Methods Staff Working Paper Series.
  52. Willis (2005). Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983655
  53. Tourangeau (2003). Cognitive aspects of survey measurement and mismeasurement. Int J Public Opin Res., 15 3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.1.3
  54. Morris (2017). Development and validation of a novel scale for measuring interpersonal factors underlying injection drug using behaviours among injecting partnerships. Int J Drug Policy, 48 54. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.05.030
  55. Harris (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform., 42 377. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
  56. GoldsteinM BenerjeeR KilicT The World Bank Development ImpactPaper v Plastic Part 1: The Survey Revolution Is in Progress2012
  57. Fanning (2014). A Comparison of tablet computer and paper-based questionnaires in healthy aging research. JMIR Res Protoc., 3 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.3291
  58. Greenlaw (2009). A Comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Eval Rev., 33 464. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X09340214
  59. MacCallum (1999). Sample size in Factor analysis. Psychol Methods, 4 84. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
  60. Nunnally (1978). Pyschometric Theory.
  61. Guadagnoli (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Am Psychol Assoc., 103 265. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265
  62. Comrey (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Am Psychol Assoc., 56 754.
  63. Comrey (1992). A First Cours in Factor analysis.
  64. Ong (2014). A Primer to Bootstrapping and an Overview of doBootstrap.
  65. Osborne (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval, 99 1.
  66. Ebel (1979). Essentials of Educational Measurement.
  67. Hambleton (1993). Educ Meas Issues Pract., 12 38. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1993.tb00543.x
  68. Raykov (2015). Scale Construction and Development. Lecture Notes. Measurement and Quantitative Methods.
  69. Whiston (2008). Principles and Applications of Assessment in Counseling,
  70. Brennan (1972). A generalized upper-lower item discrimination index. Educ Psychol Meas., 32 289. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447203200206
  71. Popham (1969). Implications of criterion-referenced measurement. J Educ Meas., 6 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1969.tb00654.x
  72. Relationship between item difficulty and discrimination indices in true/false-type multiple choice questions of a para-clinical multidisciplinary paper6771 RasiahS-MS IsaiahR 16565756Ann Acad Med Singap352006
  73. Demars (2010). Item Respons Theory. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377033.001.0001
  74. Lord (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems.
  75. Bazaldua (2017). Assessing the performance of Classical Test Theory item discrimination estimators in Monte Carlo simulations. Asia Pac Educ Rev., 18 585. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9507-4
  76. Piedmont (2014). Inter-item correlations. 3303. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1493
  77. Tarrant (2009). An assessment of functioning and non-functioning distractors in multiple-choice questions: a descriptive analysis. BMC Med Educ., 9 40. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-40
  78. Fulcher (2012). The Routledge Handbook of Language Testing.
  79. Cizek (1994). Further investigation of nonfunctioning options in multiple-choice test items. Educ Psychol Meas., 54 861. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054004002
  80. Haladyna (1989). Validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Appl Meas Educ., 2 51. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0201_4
  81. Tappen (2011). Advanced Nursing Research.
  82. Enders (2009). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Struct Equ Model., 8 430. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
  83. Kenward (2007). Multiple imputation: current perspectives. Stat Methods Med Res., 16 199. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280206075304
  84. Gottschall (2012). A Comparison of item-level and scale-level multiple imputation for questionnaire batteries. Multivar Behav Res., 47 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.640589
  85. Cattell (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res., 1 245. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
  86. Horn (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in Factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30 179. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
  87. Velicer (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41 321. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293557
  88. Lorenzo-Seva (2011). The hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivar Behav Res., 46 340. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527
  89. Jolijn Hendriks (2003). The five-factor personality inventory: cross-cultural generalizability across 13 countries. Eur J Pers., 17 347. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/per.491
  90. Bond (2013). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410614575
  91. Brown (2014). Confirmatory Factor analysis for Applied Research.
  92. Morin (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J., 23 116. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
  93. Cochran (1952). The χ2 test of goodness of fit. Ann Math Stat., 23 315. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729380
  94. Brown (2014). Confirmatory Factor analysis for Applied Research.
  95. Tucker (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood Factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
  96. Bentler (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull., 88 588. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  97. Bentler (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull., 107 238. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  98. Hu (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J., 6 1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  99. JöreskogKG SörbomD LISREL 8.54. Structural Equation Modeling With the Simplis Command Language2004
  100. Browne (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. 136.
  101. Yu (2002). Evaluating Cutoff Criteria of Model Fit Indices for Latent Variable Models With Binary and Continuous Outcomes.
  102. Gerbing (1996). Viability of exploratory Factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory Factor analysis. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J., 3 62. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540030
  103. Reise (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res., 16 19. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7
  104. Gibbons (1992). Full-information item bi-Factor analysis. Psychometrika, 57 423. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295430
  105. Reise (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. J Pers Assess., 92 544. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.496477
  106. Brunner (2012). A Tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. J Pers., 80 796. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x
  107. Vandenberg (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research – Robert J. Vandenberg, Charles E. Lance, 2000. Organ Res Methods, 3 4. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
  108. Sideridis Multi-population invariance with dichotomous measures: combining multi-group and MIMIC methodologies in evaluating the general aptitude test in the arabic language – Georgios D. Sideridis, Ioannis Tsaousis, Khaleel A. Al-harbi, 2015. J Psychoeduc Assess., 33 568. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914567871
  109. Joreskog (1973). A general method for estimating a linear equation system. 85.
  110. Kim (2017). Measurement invariance testing with many groups: a comparison of five approaches. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J., 24 524. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1304822
  111. MuthénB. AsparouhovT BSEM Measurement Invariance Analysis2017
  112. Asparouhov Multiple-group Factor analysis alignment. Struct Equ Model., 21 495. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210
  113. Reise (1993). Confirmatory Factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol Bull., 114 552. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552
  114. Pushpanathan (2018). Beyond Factor analysis: multidimensionality and the Parkinson's disease sleep scale-revised. PLoS ONE, 13 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192394
  115. Armor (1973). Theta reliability and factor scaling. Sociol Methodol., 5 17. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/270831
  116. Porta (2008). A Dictionary of Epidemiology.
  117. Cronbach (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 297. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
  118. Zumbo (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for likert rating scales. J Mod Appl Stat Methods, 6 21. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1177992180
  119. Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual, empirical, and practical guide113 GadermannAM GuhnM ZumboB Pract Assess Res Eval172012
  120. McDonald (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment.
  121. Revelle (1979). Hierarchical cluster analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivar Behav Res., 14 57. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1401_4
  122. Revelle (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74 145. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
  123. Bernstein (1994). Pyschometric Theory.
  124. Weir (2005). JP: Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Con Res., 19 231. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1519/15184.1
  125. Rousson (2002). Assessing intrarater, interrater and test–retest reliability of continuous measurements. Stat Med., 21 3431. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1253
  126. Churchill (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res., 16 64. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/3150876
  127. Bland (1990). A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med., 20 337. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4825(90)90013-F
  128. Hebert (1991). The inappropriateness of conventional use of the correlation coefficient in assessing Validity and reliability of dietary assessment methods. Eur J Epidemiol., 7 339. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144997
  129. McPhail (2007). Alternative Validation Strategies: Developing New and Leveraging Existing Validity Evidence.
  130. DrayS DunschF HolmlundM The World Bank Development ImpactElectronic Versus Paper-Based Data Collection: Reviewing the Debate2016
  131. Ellen (2002). A randomized comparison of A-CASI and phone interviews to assess STD/HIV-related risk behaviors in teens. J Adolesc Health, 31 26. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00404-9
  132. Chesney (2006). A Validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. Br J Health Psychol., 11 421. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1348/135910705X53155
  133. Thurstone (1947). Multiple-Factor analysis.
  134. Fan (1998). Item response theory and Classical Test Theory: an empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educ Psychol Meas., 58 357. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058003001
  135. Glockner-Rist (2003). The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J., 10 544. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1004_4
  136. Keeves (2005). Applied Rasch Measurement: A Book of Exemplars: Papers in Honour of John P. Keeves.
  137. Cappelleri (2014). Overview of Classical Test Theory and item response theory for quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcome measures. Clin Ther., 36 648. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.006
  138. Harvey (1999). Item response theory. Couns Psychol., 27 353. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000099273004
  139. Cook (2009). Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption. Qual. Life Res, 18 447. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4
  140. Greca (1993). Social anxiety scale for children-revised: factor structure and concurrent Validity. J Clin Child Psychol., 22 17. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2201_2
  141. Frongillo (2004). Technical Guide to Developing a Direct, Experience-Based Measurement Tool for Household Food Insecurity.

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer). PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/best-practices-for-developing-and-validating-scales-primer/

Mohammed looti. "Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer)." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 14 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/best-practices-for-developing-and-validating-scales-primer/.

Mohammed looti. "Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer)." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/best-practices-for-developing-and-validating-scales-primer/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer)', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/best-practices-for-developing-and-validating-scales-primer/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer)," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales (Primer). PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Machiavellianism Scales (Mach Scales)
  2. Organizational Policies and Practices
  3. Parenting Practices
  4. Recovery Oriented Practices Index (ROPI)
  5. Strengths-Based Practices Inventory (SBPI)
  6. Christian Faith Practices Scale (CFPS)
  7. Sexual Health Practices Self-Efficacy Scale
  8. Organizational Practices Questionnaire
  9. ATTITUDE TOWARD CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICES SCALE
  10. Childhood Mealtime Experiences and Early Childcare and Education Staff Classroom Feeding Practices–Model Survey
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top