Abstract

The verity of conclusions drawn from psychological research hinges on the reliability and validity of the measures used to collect the data. Any research conducted using measures with low reliability or validity is rendered essentially useless; thus, reporting reliability and validity evidence for measures employed in research is an essential component in creating rigorous, replicable research. Multiple reporting standards have been implemented and revised over the years with the intent to improve measurement and reporting practices within clinical psychology, though few guidelines have been suggested regarding adequate reporting practices for studies' measures. We reviewed a representative sample of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in the Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology in 1994, 2002, 2010, and 2018 for reported reliability and validity evidence. We examined whether the implementation of reporting standards led to improvement in reporting measures' reliability and validity evidence over time, along with how frequently articles recently published in one of the top clinical psychology journals reported reliability and validity evidence. We found that only 58.1% of measures used in articles published in 2018 reported reliability evidence, and only 12.4% reported validity evidence. Furthermore, although reporting of reliability and validity evidence has improved when comparing articles published in 2018 to those published in 1994 or 2002, such reporting practices were not significantly different from articles published in 2010. We provide a discussion of the importance of these findings and recommendations for improving reporting practices in future research.

Degree

MS

College and Department

Psychology

Rights

https://lib.byu.edu/about/copyright/

Date Submitted

2020-06-10

Document Type

Thesis

Handle

http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/etd11780

Keywords

measurement, reliability, validity, reporting practices

Language

english

Share

COinS