El protocolo de investigación VII. Validez y confiabilidad de las mediciones
PubMed (Inglés)

Palabras clave


Cómo citar

El protocolo de investigación VII. Validez y confiabilidad de las mediciones. (2018). Revista Alergia México, 65(4), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.29262/ram.v65i4.560



The concept of validity in research refers to what is true or what is close to the truth. It is considered that the results of an investigation will be valid when the study is free of errors. The errors or biases appear in the development of research, are due to methodological problems and, in general, can be grouped into three: selection bias, measurement bias and confusion bias. In this article, measurement biases will be addressed; this type of error has three axes: 1) the research subject, 2) the instrument for the measurement of the variable (s), and 3) those who make the evaluation of the measurement (s). To improve the obtaining of data and to prevent errors, some strategies can be followed: in every study protocol, it is necessary to include the operational definition of the variables; the subjects that will carry out the measurements or surveys must be trained. If measuring instruments are used, their proper functioning must be verified; when questionnaires are included, they must be validated in the language in which they will be applied, they have had a process of adaptation to the language of the participants in the study, and self-applicable ones are preferred. It is necessary to quantify the variability of the measurements from the statistical point of view to increase the validity of a study.

PubMed (Inglés)


Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(8):635-641. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2003.008466

Hernández-Ávila M, Garrido F, Salazar-Martínez E. Sesgos en estudios epidemiológicos. Salud Publica Mex. 2000;42:438-446.

Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Broewnwer WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Diseño de investigaciones clínicas. EE. UU.: Lippincot, Williams & Wilkins; 2014.

Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619-625. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc

Sessler DI, Imrey PB. Clinical research methodology 1: study designs and methodologic source of error. Anesth Analg. 2015;121(4):1034-1042. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000815

Sitthi-amorn C, Poshyachinda V. Bias. Lancet. 1993;342(8866):286-288. DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91823-5

Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C. Selection bias and information bias in clinical research. Nephron Clin Pract. 2010;115(2):c94-c99. DOI: 10.1159/000312871

Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(3):189-202.

Vetter TR, Mascha EJ. Bias, confounding, and interaction: lions and tigers, and bears, oh my! Anesth Analg. 2017;125(3):1042-1048. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002332

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S. A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(10):1093-1104. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.

Derechos de autor 2018 Revista Alergia México


Download data is not yet available.