Instrument Development - Science topic

Should I use the term "questionnaire" or "instrument" in a paper? Is there a clear and practical difference?

I have found 5 point Likert scale items for my mediator and 3 of my IVs, while I am unable to find 5-point Likert scale items for my DV and one IV. Can I change the scale from 7-point to 5-point if I am unable to find the same scale for my DV and one of my IVs?

Is there any particular technique to convert the scale from 7-point to 5-point? Does it require any rationale/logic?

Dear fellow researchers, I am Edita. I am currently conducting a longitudinal international research and collaborating with other researchers about forgiveness.The goal of this research is to better describe distinctive presentations of forgiveness in various cultures, contributing to greater understanding of what it means to forgive. Part of the research involves these instruments: "Cultural Motives for Transgression Resolution" (39 items) and "Intergroup Forgiveness" (was created by Noor, Brown, & Prentice, 2008). My questions are do you know the reference and how do you score and interpret the "Cultural Motives for Transgression Resolution" scale? In addition, how do you score and interpret the Intergroup Forgiveness scale (e.g. any total score)?

Please kindly share it with me if you know about it! Thank you in advance!

Good evening community. My name is Adrián de Jesús Vargas, and I am currently developing my master's degree in administration, with emphasis on research in the topic "Determination of soft skills that favor the employability of managers in the tourism sector, from the perception of graduates, teachers and entrepreneurs from the tourism sector ", apart from the instrument developed by Dr. Crawford and her team for research carried out in 2011, on" Comparative Analysis of Soft Skills: What is Important for New Graduates? Comparative Analysis of Soft Skills: What is Important for New Graduates? Perceptions of Employers, Alum, Faculty and Students ", where they evaluate 7 clusters of soft skills relevant to employability. They know some other tool that identifies what soft skills a manager requires to improve their employability. Cordially, Adrián de Jesús Vargas adriandejvargas@gmail.com +57 3182702215

I'm currently working on mixed method research about instrument development. My plan is to use exploratory sequential design but I don't think it's correct since my instrument development will be based on other instrument that already exist. I will start from qualitative data collection to construct an instrument and then continue with quantitative data analysis. Are there any suggestion on this?

Dear all,

Can you please tell me the ways to measure differential pressures across utility sides of the heat exchangers.

Unlike process side, the utility side pressure drops may not be measured. What can be done in such cases ? Are there indirect ways to measure it?

Thank you.

While measuring a variable of abstract nature like personality trait, is it necessary to request permission to use measurement instruments developed by some other authors. Though we properly acknowledge and cite the source from which we took the measuring instrument and properly mention that we adapted the measuring instrument from prior research done by Author(Year) etc.

The quantum phenomenon as an aspect of objective reality was a more or less accidental discovery by the turn of the 20th century that no one (philosopher, scientist or thinker) could even anticipate in their wildest imagination. But within its short life span, the quantum phenomena have revolutionized modern natural science and technology. The major part of modern life is dependent on the various aspect of this phenomenon. As a scientific tool it provides the most accurate results ever achieved by man; about the smallest and the largest objects of Nature and Life.

But ironically, if we go by the following quotes from the people who were instrumental in developing and working with this phenomenon; it remains as unfathomable and enigmatic aspect of objective reality as ever before! Why this disconnect? Is it possible to do anything about it?

1. “If it is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science”. Albert Einstein

2. "If someone says that he can think about quantum physics without becoming dizzy, that shows only that he has not understood anything whatever about it." Niels Bohr

3. “I do not like it, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it”. Erwin Schrödinger

4. “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”. Richard Feynman

5. “If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it”. John Wheeler

6. “Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense”. Roger Penrose

The Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale-II (MSTAT-II) by McLain ( 2009 ) is most recent instrument developed as per my search. Any ideas how I can get this scale to carry out my masters dissertation.

Instrument development

Cronbach alpha values

reliability test

Can anyone please suggest a valid instrument (developed scale) to measure cultural heritage knowledge level.

Hello all,

This is a slightly strange one.

I need to convince a community of practice (field biologists) that they need to validate their tools and methods before they use them to generate results that are used as the basis for important management decisions.

While QC and validation have penetrated to the benches in biochemistry and microbiology labs, they are completely foreign to field biologists, for reasons that I will not burden you with here.

What I need is a basic introduction to QC and validation that is not specific to the hard sciences (physics and chemistry), and that sets out the fundamental reasons why knowing that a tool and a method work properly are essential steps in doing good science and generating results that can be relied on.

I have googled all the combinations of validation, QC, fit for purpose, etc etc that I can think of, and everything I find is too specific to particular applications - I need something that sets out the basic need for validation in general. Peer reviewed or a standard textbook is preferred, but anything clearly written will be a help.

Thanks.

Peter

I am using Lawshe's Content Validation Ratio to get mutual agreement for Content Validity. Only four items are under critical value. Can I still include it in my pilot test after do some refinement? If yes, can u please help me with the citation?

Or i have to drop it? normally the references that I read suggest that.

If anyone could help me to guide about the process of instrument development would be much appreciated.

I am using SERVQUAL instrument developed my Zeithaml to assess service quality. The original and many subsequent papers have found 5 factors emerging of the scale, popularly called as- reliability, responsivness, assurance, empathy and tangibility.

When I apply this scale to my industry and geography, I am getting on 3 factors.

Does this mean that i need to collect data all over again, on those 3 factors alone?

or

can I move ahead with same data set, ignoring those items which were not a part of any of the 3 factors i obtained.

I am chairing a work group for the the NONPF that is task with creating a simulation evaluation instrument. A quick PubMed search did not reveal and existing instrument though their are some articles on the topic.

I would love to know if anyone has one that currently exist for any health profession. Obviously, instrument development is time consuming and I wouldn't want to recreate what already exist.

I am planning to conduct an instrument development research, may I ask for any reference materials and/or published articles? 

What are the prime considerations that I must observe?

I recently concluded a Modified Delphi Study in which I developed a research instrument. The instrument had a high consensus rate as expert participants reached agreement on the issues explored. I however want to use the instrument to further explore stakeholder's perspectives regarding an issue and I would like to know if it is necessary to pilot test the instrument or rather pretest it? I am stuck between making the decision to either pilot test or pretest. My perspective is that I may not have to pilot test since the instrument was developed from a Delphi study with a high consensus rate, but then again does a high consensus establish reliability. Or do I simply pretest it to establish readability and understand-ability from my sample? Please I need your perspectives with corresponding justifications to support it. Thank you

Factorial analysis steps

Factorial analysis methodologies

Necessary tools to use

Suppose I want to develop one instrument. In the item creation stage I have found that for a particular construct "x", there is hardly any existing item. For another construct "y", I have found 20 items from existing instruments. Is there any norm for creating a minimum number of new items (where no existing item has been found) or select minimum number of items from existing instruments to cover all dimensions of a particular construct?

I am a PhD researcher and have utilised an exploratory sequential instrument development design.  I conducted semi-structured interviews and have consequently developed a survey from the findings.  The survey is descriptive and cross-sectional and is simply a follow-up quantitative phase to the main qualitative phase of the research.

Due to the issues with potential response rates (challenging to engage the study population), I envisage piloting to be difficult as I am asking additional questions to merely completing the survey.  Is it appropriate for me to go back to the original interview participants and pilot test the survey with them in addition to identifying new pilot testers? Or methodologically would that not be approved of, given their participation in the original interviews and their existing awareness of the topic area?

Any guidance would be appreciated,

Thanks

It has been noted that clinicians in Africa are forced to use instrument measures that were developed and validated either for American and European children which are quite limited. It is therefore imperative that African Researchers put efforts together to develop culturally sensitive measures.

I am developing an instrument - A. I have calibrated it against a reference instrument B which is believed to be very accurate. Now, I again tested 13 fresh samples in both the instruments and found out the percentage errors. Does it make sense to report a Bland Altman plot analysis to measure the agreement between the two instruments ? Technically one instrument - A is calibrated based on the reference and accurate instrument - B.

I am a 2nd year PhD student and am undertaking a mixed methods research project (specifically instrument development design).  I'm interested in developing a quantitative survey instrument from findings obtained through qualitative interviews. However I'm struggling to find other researchers or robust papers which are able to provide a detailed step-by-step account of the approach utilised. I have completed 22 semi-structured interviews and have started the data analysis process.

Any advice would be appreciated.

I know this is practically impossible due to the noise which accumulates to a huge number due to double integration. But still, many research have been conducted to minimize it. like the GPS reference method and others. Some YouTube videos shows that they have done even absolute positioning using only IMU successfully.  

I need to measure the height of an dynamic object from the ground. the net error must be within a few centimeter. So, GPS referencing is not an option here. I need some other reference for correction and/or an efficient algorithm / method for "integration". Please help me with any suggestions or directions.

I have always been taught to do this, but without any explanation of the reason. Does the instrument response really vary that much from day to day, given that you allow the lamp adequate time to stabilize? I suppose ideally you would calibrate every instrument frequently, but I don't, for example, find that I need to check the calibration of my microbalance every time I use it.

I would like to read external magnetic fields (of both polarities ) which can reach upto 2 Tesla as fast as I can (at least 200reading per second).Any suggestion is appreciated . I am thinking of using Hall sensors but it seems most of them (on the market) are designed for very small magnetic fields .

Instrument development.

I have the options of Cu and stainless steel. It will operate with 30kV, 10mA under vacuum. I will appreciate if you share any ideas about which material to go for...

Many thanks,

Oznur

I have developed an instrument of business incubation centers and this paper has been published in September 2014. During my research, I have not found this kind of publication.

I would like to question if anyone ever seen another publication regarding the instrument development of business incubation centers. Your information would be much appreciated.   

I am looking for a disease state, for the purpose of creating a seminar for my department's students. I need some specific parameters to make the concept work. The factors are: A- no current instrument for patient reported outcomes (HRQoL) exists but there is a need for one; B- the disease state has an active and effective patient support organization (PAH is a good example) and C- the organization has an established website with a meaningful, of patient visitors. Together, these usually mean a rare or "orphan" disease. The project will be to create the instrument for the use of the clinical and patient community, as an exercise for the students.

Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) is usually done in UHV (and sometimes in Air). Doing STM in UHV has many advantages but also imposes greater constraints. In some applications, possibly working in HV only could be more advantageous. So, I wonder exactly what one loses by performing STM in HV (apart from no having perfect surface cleanness). Would the current stability (and tip behaviour) be much worse? What drawbacks would high vacuum imply? Please indicate relevant literature on the subject.

I develop a standardized survey questionnaire for the evaluation of a journal/magazine. A set of questions should measure the attitude (connotative meaning) of the journal/magazine from the perspective of readers. Prior, in some qualitative interviews I collected a number of relevant adjectives for the semantic differential. Nevertheless, the list of items is very long and I don't know on which criteria I should reduce the number of adjective pairs. My possibilities to pre-test are very restricted.

There doesn't seem to be a comprehensive list anywhere online and I have yet to come up with search terms that don't put me behind the eight ball with too many other, irrelevant results. I'm looking through literature for affiliations now, but it's slow going.

If we have to find the speed of sound in any material measuring sound vibrations at different points in the sample, what kind of piezoelectric sensors which have high sensitivity would be useful?

I need to take analog pulse (0-5 V) transition as hardware trigger and thereby call a third party software to acquire the pressure data simultaneously from DSA Scanivalve 3217. Is it possible to call and sample continuously by interfacing with a third party software?