LoU Interview ratings correlated .65 with readers' ratings of written ethnographic protocols, which the author read as support for the interview's validity tempered by second-hand information¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1977 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 1980: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The correlation between the consensus reader rating (based on written protocols) and the consensus interview rating was .65, which the authors read as support tempered by the difficulty of conveying information second hand. → Loucks 1977

Evidence¶

Loucks 1977¶

Loucks, Susan F. (1977). Levels of Use of the Innovation: The Conceptualization and Measurement of a Variable Useful for Assessing Innovation Implementation by Individuals. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED137947

q2 · validity comparison within an ethnographic study · i? · r = .65, an agreement coefficient, not an effect size · design · r2

Second validity comparison in the same ethnographic study, between consensus ratings by two readers of the written ethnographic protocols and the consensus interview rating, showing weaker agreement than the ethnographer comparison.

"The coefficient for the second comparison was .65, which lent support to the validity of the interview, although at the same time revealing the difficulty involved in conveying sufficient information second hand"

Discussion¶

The recorded entry is the second of the study's validity comparisons, against two readers' consensus ratings of the ethnographers' written protocols (r = .65). The first comparison, against the ethnographers' own ratings from full-day observation, is described in the entry only as stronger; its coefficient is not recorded on this page.

Related Claims¶

• The LoU Interview shows high interrater reliability, and the rating procedure was streamlined over two years without loss of agreement — related
• PeerWise student ratings of multiple-choice questions correlate well with instructor ratings (0.5 and 0.58) — related