246 7 Chapter 7 bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015;68(4):435-41. 43. Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores, (2013). 44. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current Concepts in Validity and Reliability for Psychometric Instruments: Theory and Application. The American Journal of Medicine. 2006;119(2):166.e7-.e16. 45. Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): building an argument for validity. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(7):1695-710. 46. American Educational Research Association APANCoMiEJCoSfE, Psychological T. Standards for educational and psychological testing2014. 47. van Hattem NE, Silven AV, Bonten TN, Chavannes NH. COVID-19’s impact on the future of digital health technology in primary care. Family Practice. 2021. 48. Silven AV, Petrus AHJ, Villalobos-Quesada M, Dirikgil E, Oerlemans CR, Landstra CP, et al. Telemonitoring for Patients With COVID-19: Recommendations for Design and Implementation. Journal of medical Internet research. 2020;22(9):e20953-e. 49. Dirikgil E, Roos R, Groeneveld GH, Heringhaus C, Silven AV, Petrus AHJ, et al. Home-monitoring reduced short stay admissions in suspected COVID-19 patients: COVID-box project. European Respiratory Journal. 2021:2100636. 50. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of selfreport measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. 51. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):268-74. 52. Tashakkori Ae, Teddlie Ce. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Second edition. ed. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors: Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE; 2016. 53. Castro FG, Kellison JG, Boyd SJ, Kopak A. A Methodology for Conducting Integrative Mixed Methods Research and Data Analyses. J Mix Methods Res. 2010;4(4):342-60. 54. Swinburn University of Technology CfGHaE. Ophelia and questionnaires: Swinburn University of Technology, Centre for Global Health and Equity; [Available from: https://www.swinburne.edu.au/research/global-health-equity/ ophelia-and-questionnaires/. 55. Hawkins M, Cheng C, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Translation method is validity evidence for construct equivalence: analysis of secondary data routinely collected during translations of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2020;20(1):130. 56. Blair J, Conrad F. Sample Size for Cognitive Interview Pretesting2011. 636-58 p. 57. Cognitive Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California2005. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/ cognitive-interviewing. 58. Beatty PC, Willis GB. Research Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2007;71(2):287-311. 59. Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research. 2003;12(3):22938. 60. Halcomb EJ, Davidson PM. Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary? Applied Nursing Research. 2006;19(1):38-42. 61. Knafl K, Deatrick J, Gallo A, Holcombe G, Bakitas M, Dixon J, et al. The analysis and interpretation of cognitive interviews for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health. 2007;30(2):224-34. 62. Ranatunga RVSPK, Priyanath HMS, Rgn M. Methods and Rule-Of-Thumbs in The Determination of Minimum Sample Size When Appling Structural Equation Modelling: A Review. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH. 2020;15. 63. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012;48(2):1 - 36. 64. Mîndril D, editor Maximum Likelihood ( ML ) and Diagonally Weighted Least Squares ( DWLS ) Estimation Procedures : A Comparison of Estimation Bias with Ordinal and Multivariate Non-Normal Data2010.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw