Defining a “Good” Communimetric Measurement Tool

Reliability and Validity Considerations
  • John S. Lyons


The quality of any measurement process is defined by at least two essential characteristics—the consistency and accuracy with which the measurement process can be applied and the degree to which the measure is capturing the construct or constructs it is purported to measure. These two related measurement characteristics are commonly referred to as reliability and validity. Given the design approach of a communimetric measurement tool, considerations regarding reliability and validity are distinct but overlapping depending on the use to which the tool is applied. For analyses of aggregated data in which the tool is scored by dimensions, the concepts of reliability and validity are very consistent with traditional psychometric consideration. However, for other applications, the unique characteristics of a communimetric measure require an elaboration of additional considerations about both reliability and validity.


Behavioral Health Face Validity Internal Consistency Reliability Residential Treatment Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 


  1. Anastasi, A. (1968). Psychological testing (3rd ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. L., Lyons, J. S., Giles, D. M., Price, J. A., & Estle, G. (2003). Examining the reliability of the child and adolescent needs and strengths-mental health (CANS-MH) scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 1573–2843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fogel, R. (1964). Railroads and American economic growth. Essays in econometric history. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  5. Lyons, J. S. (2004). Redressing the emperor: Improving our children's public mental health service system. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Nunally, J. (1976). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Shrout, P. E. and Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 restructured clinical scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • John S. Lyons
    • 1
  1. 1.Endowed Chair of Child and Youth Mental Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations