“Precision” and “Accuracy”: Two Terms That Are Neither

  • David L. Streiner
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Tel.: 416-785-2500, x2534; fax: 416-785-4230.
    Affiliations
    Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, Department of Psychiatry, Kunin-Lunenfeld Applied Research Unit, University of Toronto, 3560 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario M6A 2E1, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Geoffrey R. Norman
    Affiliations
    Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatisties, McMaster University, 1200 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario L7N 3Z5, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
Published:February 03, 2006DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.09.005

      Abstract

      Objective

      In some publications, the terms “precision” and “accuracy” are used as if they were synonyms for “reliability” and “validity.”

      Methods and Results

      This article shows that these terms are neither precise nor accurate when used in this way. Scales can demonstrate high test–retest or interrater reliability (i.e., they are “precise”) but still be unreliable in certain circumstances; and “imprecise” scales can still show good reliability. Further, “accuracy” as a synonym for validity reflects an outdated conceptualization of validity, which has been superseded by one that emphasizes that validity tells us what conclusions can be drawn about a person based on a test result.

      Conclusion

      The article ends with a call for the use of the more traditional terms as better reflecting the process of scale development and the uses to which they are put.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Peña-Casanova J.
        Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale—cognitive in clinical practice.
        Int Psychogeriatr. 1997; 9: 105-114
        • Cork R.D.
        • Detmer W.M.
        • Friedman C.P.
        Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physicians' use of, knowledge about, and attitudes toward computers.
        JAMIA. 1998; 5: 164-176
        • Streiner D.L.
        Clinimetrics versus psychometrics: an unnecessary distinction.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 1142-1145
        • Streiner D.L.
        Test development: two-sided coin or one-sided Möbius strip?.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 1148-1149
        • Streiner D.L.
        • Norman G.R.
        Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use.
        3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford2003
        • Cowles J.T.
        • Kubany A.J.
        Improving the measurement of clinical performance in medical students.
        J Clin Psychol. 1959; 15: 139-142
        • Linn L.
        Interns' attitudes and values as antecedents of clinical performance.
        J Med Educ. 1979; 54: 238-240
        • Cronbach L.J.
        • Meehl P.E.
        Construct validity in psychological tests.
        Psychol Bull. 1955; 52: 281-302
        • Husted J.A.
        • Cook R.J.
        • Farewell V.T.
        • et al.
        Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 459-468
        • Rutter C.M.
        • Taplin S.
        Assessing mammographers' accuracy: a comparison of clinical and test performance.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 443-450
        • American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education
        Standards for educational and psychological tests and manuals.
        American Psychological Association, Washington, DC1966
        • Goodwin L.D.
        • Leech N.L.
        The meaning of validity in the new Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing: implications for measurement courses.
        Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2003; 36: 181-191
        • Messick S.
        Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performance as scientific inquiry into score meaning.
        Am Psychol. 1995; 50: 741-749
        • Hoffmann T.
        • Dana R.H.
        • Bolton B.
        Measured acculturation and MMPI-168 performance of Native American adults.
        J Cross Cult Psychol. 1985; 16: 243-256
        • Langenfeld T.E.
        • Crocker L.M.
        The evolution of validity theory: public school testing, the courts, and incompatible interpretations.
        Educ Assess. 1994; 2: 149-165
        • Messick S.
        Test validity and the ethics of assessment.
        Am Psychol. 1980; 35: 1012-1027