Test for clinical reasoning evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology: content validity.

IF 0.9 Q4 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY CoDAS Pub Date : 2024-05-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt
Ana Cristina Côrtes Gama, Aline Mansueto Mourão, Adriane Mesquita Medeiros, Patrícia Cotta Mancini, Thais Helena Machado, Lara Gama Santos, Nayara Ribeiro Gomes
{"title":"Test for clinical reasoning evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology: content validity.","authors":"Ana Cristina Côrtes Gama, Aline Mansueto Mourão, Adriane Mesquita Medeiros, Patrícia Cotta Mancini, Thais Helena Machado, Lara Gama Santos, Nayara Ribeiro Gomes","doi":"10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master's degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":46547,"journal":{"name":"CoDAS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189150/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CoDAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS.

Methods: This is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised.

Results: Thirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master's degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges.

Conclusion: FonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
言语病理学临床推理评估测试:内容有效性。
目的:验证名为 FonoTCS 的言语病理学一致性测试的内容:这是对测验内容的验证研究。五位语言病理学家均拥有博士学位和教学经验,平均从业年限为 24.8 年,他们参与了 FonoTCS 的开发,并在开发过程中达成了共识。共创建了 30 个问题和 120 个条目,涵盖三个领域的七个言语病理专业领域。为了进行内容验证,FonoTCS 以电子版形式发送给 15 位评估者,让他们回答问卷中的五个问题,并根据问题的清晰度、道德性和相关性等标准进行五级评分。对所有陈述都计算了校正内容有效性系数,以分析答复情况。对同意率等于或低于 80% 的问题进行了修订:参与分析的 13 位评估员均为女性,平均年龄为 39.07 岁,其中 8 位拥有硕士学位,5 位拥有博士学位,平均临床实践经验为 15.38 年。清晰度标准的校正内容效度系数平均值为 0.93 和 0.95,相关性标准的校正内容效度系数平均值为 0.98 和 0.92,道德标准的校正内容效度系数平均值为 0.99。两个问题的得分分别为 0.78 和 0.80,均与评估/诊断领域中的听力学有关,特别是有关相关性标准的问题 2。评委对这些问题进行了审查和重组:从内容角度来看,FonoTCS 是一个有效的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CoDAS
CoDAS AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
103
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of Competing Sentence Test in Kannada. Activity ordering task: conceptualization and development of a novel context-based working memory task with a metacognitive facet. Development of a Comprehensive Cough Therapy Program (CCTP) for chronic cough in India: a qualitative study. Speech perception in the Specific Learning Disorder with and without Persistent Speech Sound Disorder. Analysis of brain activity for speech stimuli and child development of an infant with neurosyphilis: case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1