Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Instrumentation

Instrumentation refers to the tools or means by which investigators attempt to measure variables or items of interest in the data-collection process. It is related not only to instrument design, selection, construction, and assessment, but also the to conditions under which the designated instruments are administered—the instrument is the device used by investigators for collecting data. In addition, during the process of data collection, investigators might fail to recognize that changes in the calibration of the measuring instrument(s) can lead to biased results. Therefore, instrumentation is also a specific term with respect to a threat to internal validity in research. This entry discusses instrumentation in relation to the data-collection process, internal validity, and research designs.

Instrumentation Pertaining to the Whole Process of Data Collection

Instrumentation is the use of, or work completed by, planned instruments. In a research effort, it is the responsibility of an investigator to describe thoroughly the instrument used to measure the dependent variable(s), outcome(s), or the effects of interventions or treatments. In addition, because research largely relies on data collection through measurement, and instruments are assigned with operational numbers to measure purported constructs, instrumentation inevitably involves the procedure of establishing instrument validity and reliability as well as minimizing measurement errors.

Validity and Reliability

Validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures what it purports to measure with investigated subjects. Based on the research necessities, investigators need to determine ways to assess instrument validity that best fits the needs and objectives for the research. In general, instrument validity consists of face validity, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct-related validity. It is necessary to note that an instrument is simply valid for measuring a particular purpose and for a designated group. That is, an instrument can be valid for measuring a group of specific subjects but can become invalid for another. For example, a valid 4th-grade math achievement test is unlikely to be a valid math achievement test for 2nd graders. In another instance, a valid 4th-grade math achievement test is unlikely to be a valid aptitude test for 4th graders.

Reliability refers to the degree to which an instrument consistently measures whatever the instrument was designed to measure. A reliable instrument can generate consistent results. More specifically, when an instrument is applied to target subjects more than once, an investigator can expect to obtain results that are quite similar or even identical each time. Such measurement consistency enables investigators to gain confidence in the measuring ability or dependability of the particular instrument. Approaches to reliability consist of repeated measurements on an individual (i.e., testretest and equivalent forms), internal consistency measures (i.e., split-half, Kuder Richardson 20, KuderRichardson 21, and Cronbach's alpha), and interrater and intrarater reliability. Usually, reliability is shown in the numerical form, as a coefficient. The range of reliability coefficient is from 0 (errors existed in the entire measurement) to 1 (no error in the measurement was discovered); the higher the coefficient, the better the reliability.

Measurement Errors

Investigators need to attempt to minimize measurement errors whenever practical and possible for the purpose of accurately indicating the reported values collected by the instrument. Measurement errors can occur for various reasons and might result from the conditions of testing (e.g., test procedure not properly followed, testing site too warm or too cold for subjects to calmly respond to the instrument, noise distractions, or poor seating arrangements), from characteristics of the instrument itself (e.g., statements/questions not clearly stated, invalid instruments of measuring the concept in question, unreliable instruments, or statements/questions too long), from test subjects themselves (e.g., socially desirable responses provided by subjects, bogus answers provided by subjects, or updated or correct information not possessed by subjects), or combinations of these listed errors. Pamela L. Alreck and Robert B. Settle refer to the measurement errors described previously as instrumentation bias and error.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading