Contextualizing the Interpretation of Reliability Data

What is the relationship between the context and substantive meaning of a measure and the assessment of the reliability of the measure? Does the interpretation of a reliability coefficient depend on the nature of the measure? How does this approach to reliability relate to alternative assessments?     

Establishing reliability of biomechanical data using univariate and multivariate approaches

The purpose of this study was to use generalizability theory with both univariate and multivariate approaches to examine reliability of total body center of mass (CM) values calculated from cinematographical data. Twenty-eight college-aged male volunteers were filmed by a LOCAM camera at 100 fps while performing the basic locomotion skill of walking. Film analysis was conducted on each subject using six frames of film depicting a one-stride walking cycle consisting of right heel strike, right foot flat, left toe-off, left heel strike, left foot flat, and right toe-off. Nineteen segmental endpoints and a reference point were digitized by three experienced plotters. The digitizing sequence was replicated three times by each plotter. A FORTRAN program calculated nine CM values (three plotters by three repetitions) for each subject filmed in each of the six positions of the stride. The x- and y-coordinates of the CM values were the dependent variables analyzed by fully crossed 3-way univariate and multivariate ANOVAs (subjects by plotters by repetitions). All measurement facets were considered to be random. Results indicate that there was very little repetition error but considerable interplotter error for most frames. Phi-coefficients for x- and y-coordinates, separately, fluctuated across frames. The univariate values for the x-coordinates were similar but slightly less than the multivariate values. The Phi-coefficients for Y, however, were considerably lower than the multivariate values. The multivariate Phi-coefficients for generalizing over three plotters and three repetitions ranged from .82 to .90.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Towards an adolescent friendly methodology: accessing the authentic through collective reflection

The re-emergence of student voice presents a challenge to schools and researchers to become more responsive to the voice of adolescents in education and in research. However, the poor articulation of the nature of student voice to date is confirmation of the complex and important nature of the personal advocacy and human agency that is involved in all student voice activities. This lack of clarity leads to interpretations of student voice that range in authenticity from token to active and meaningful (Hart, R. 1997. Children's Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. Earthscan Publications. London: UNICEF). Researchers who are guided by more traditional methodologies may implement methods that are appropriate for adults yet are not sensitive to the needs and interests of the young person whose perspectives are usually the focus of the research. This research found that while an advocacy and empowerment worldview supports student voice research, adolescents also prefer a methodology that is agentic, socially based, reflective and embodied (Dempster, N., A. Lizzio, M. Keeffe, J. Skinner, and D. Andrews. 2010. “The Contributions of Research Design and Process Facilitation in Accessing Adolescent views of Leadership.” Leading and Managing 16 [2]: 77–89). Adolescent perspectives on research processes and methods are valuable in helping researchers to choose more responsive approaches to sharing understandings with adolescents, so that research designs may be challenging, meaningful and rewarding for all participants.