A comparison of the original and revised instruments with respect to the frequency of church attendance and personal prayer, and religious affiliation suggests that the RLI-R is an improved instrument for future studies of religious orientation.
Through this work, revised instruments could intentionally use item context as a consideration in measurement: either to draw upon a variety of contexts to measure reasoning in various ways; or to strategically select only one or two contexts to control for variations, like the LPDI does.
The revised instruments and instructions (in Dutch) can be found on http://www.centrumklantervaringzorg.nl/vragenlijsten/verpleging-verzorging-en-thuiszorg.html.html
For an overview of questions of the revised instruments per quality theme, see Additional file 1: Quality Framework Responsible Care (Appendix 2, part II).
However, the results from this study suggests at best that removal of misfitting items does not affect clinical utility for the scales, although the statistical power to detect differences may be reduced for the revised instruments or scales, with the notable exception of FWB scale where the power appeared to be increased.
Our results of applying this investigation to the analysis of a randomised trial where FACT-G was an outcome measure, suggest that removing the misfitting items had no impact on item locations, nor on the ability of the revised instruments to detect significant changes in scores between patient groups.
See Tables 1 and 2 respectively for demographic information about participants and their children.>> Substantial revisions were made through Phase 4 testing: 10 domains formed the revised conceptual framework and the revised instrument had 95 items on structures, processes, and outcomes (see Additional file 2).
After initial analysis and revision, from January 2001 through July 2001, 154 different families completed the revised instrument.
Three experts checked the content validity of the revised instrument, and the reproducibility was tested by trialing the questionnaire with 154 adults.
In this paper, we offer a clarified account of global self-esteem as consisting of self-competence and self-liking and describe a revised instrument designed to measure the two correlated dimensions.
