ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

锚定最小重要性差异法×内容效度比×
领域心理测量学心理测量学
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份19891975
提出者Guyatt, Jaeschke, and SingerCharles H. Lawshe
类型Minimal clinically important difference estimationExpert panel content validity assessment
开创性文献Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407-415. DOI ↗Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. link ↗
别名MCID, Minimal clinically important difference, Anchor-based MCID, Minimal important changeCVR, Content validity index, Expert judgment content validity, Lawshe CVR
相关44
摘要The anchor-based method for establishing Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) is a technique for determining the smallest change in a patient-reported outcome (PRO) that patients or clinicians perceive as meaningful or important. Pioneered by Guyatt, Jaeschke, and Singer in 1989, this approach anchors changes in outcome scores to external clinically meaningful events or judgments, enabling researchers and clinicians to interpret whether treatment effects represent real, patient-relevant improvements.The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) is a quantitative method developed by Charles Lawshe in 1975 for evaluating the extent to which items in a measurement instrument are relevant and representative of a target construct. The method aggregates expert panel judgments into a single validity coefficient for each item, enabling researchers to identify and retain only those items deemed essential by domain experts. CVR provides objective support for content validity claims during scale development.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Anchor-Based Minimal Important Difference · Content Validity Ratio. 于 2026-06-17 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare