The Evaluation of Content Relevance and Representativeness of the New Stroke Risk Screening Scales.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Clinical Nursing Research Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1177/10547738241273864
Suebsarn Ruksakulpiwat, Joachim G Voss, Abhilash K Challa, Aaron Kudlowitz
{"title":"The Evaluation of Content Relevance and Representativeness of the New Stroke Risk Screening Scales.","authors":"Suebsarn Ruksakulpiwat, Joachim G Voss, Abhilash K Challa, Aaron Kudlowitz","doi":"10.1177/10547738241273864","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Early and comprehensive risk identification is essential for identifying individuals at high risk for stroke. This study aimed to evaluate each question in the new Stroke Risk Screening Scales (SRSS) and assess the domains for content relevance and representativeness. Initially, six stroke experts were invited to evaluate the SRSS questions. The content validity index (CVI), including the item-CVI (I-CVI) and the average-CVI (Ave-CVI), was then calculated. In our study, the acceptable standards for I-CVI and Ave-CVI were ≥0.78 and ≥0.9, respectively. The results showed that all invited experts accepted the invitation and evaluated the SRSS questions. The previous version of the SRSS consisted of 33 questions. Of these, 30 questions reached an I-CVI of ≥0.78, indicating good content validity. Three questions had an I-CVI of 0.67 and were considered invalid; thus, they were deleted. The overall instrument achieved an Ave-CVI of 0.95. Comprehensive SRSS are essential for effective stroke prevention planning. By facilitating the early identification of individuals at high risk for stroke, these scales help reduce the incidence and impact of stroke. The high content validity found in this study supports the reliability of the SRSS as a screening tool. In the future, implementing such validated scales in clinical practice can improve early intervention strategies, ultimately enhancing health outcomes and optimizing the use of healthcare resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":50677,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Nursing Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10547738241273864","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Early and comprehensive risk identification is essential for identifying individuals at high risk for stroke. This study aimed to evaluate each question in the new Stroke Risk Screening Scales (SRSS) and assess the domains for content relevance and representativeness. Initially, six stroke experts were invited to evaluate the SRSS questions. The content validity index (CVI), including the item-CVI (I-CVI) and the average-CVI (Ave-CVI), was then calculated. In our study, the acceptable standards for I-CVI and Ave-CVI were ≥0.78 and ≥0.9, respectively. The results showed that all invited experts accepted the invitation and evaluated the SRSS questions. The previous version of the SRSS consisted of 33 questions. Of these, 30 questions reached an I-CVI of ≥0.78, indicating good content validity. Three questions had an I-CVI of 0.67 and were considered invalid; thus, they were deleted. The overall instrument achieved an Ave-CVI of 0.95. Comprehensive SRSS are essential for effective stroke prevention planning. By facilitating the early identification of individuals at high risk for stroke, these scales help reduce the incidence and impact of stroke. The high content validity found in this study supports the reliability of the SRSS as a screening tool. In the future, implementing such validated scales in clinical practice can improve early intervention strategies, ultimately enhancing health outcomes and optimizing the use of healthcare resources.

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
评估新脑卒中风险筛查量表的内容相关性和代表性。
中风是全球死亡和残疾的主要原因。早期全面的风险识别对于识别脑卒中高危人群至关重要。本研究旨在评估新的脑卒中风险筛查量表(SRSS)中的每个问题,并评估各领域的内容相关性和代表性。首先邀请了六位脑卒中专家对 SRSS 的问题进行评估。然后计算内容效度指数(CVI),包括项目效度指数(I-CVI)和平均效度指数(Ave-CVI)。在我们的研究中,I-CVI 和 Ave-CVI 的可接受标准分别为≥0.78 和≥0.9。结果显示,所有受邀专家都接受了邀请,并对 SRSS 问题进行了评估。上一版本的 SRSS 包括 33 个问题。其中 30 个问题的 I-CVI 值≥0.78,表明内容效度良好。有 3 个问题的 I-CVI 为 0.67,被认为是无效的,因此被删除。整个工具的平均 CVI 值为 0.95。全面的 SRSS 对有效的脑卒中预防规划至关重要。这些量表有助于早期识别脑卒中高危人群,从而减少脑卒中的发病率和影响。本研究中发现的高内容效度支持了 SRSS 作为筛查工具的可靠性。未来,在临床实践中实施此类经过验证的量表可以改善早期干预策略,最终提高健康结果并优化医疗资源的使用。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
107
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Nursing Research (CNR) is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal that addresses issues of clinical research that are meaningful to practicing nurses, providing an international forum to encourage discussion among clinical practitioners, enhance clinical practice by pinpointing potential clinical applications of the latest scholarly research, and disseminate research findings of particular interest to practicing nurses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Implementing Resourcefulness Training© with Parent Caregivers of Children Dependent on Medical Technology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Frailty and Its Associated Factors in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cross-Sectional Study. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Cultural Beliefs of Afghan Refugee Women Toward Gynecological Cancer: A Qualitative Study. Effect of Meaning-in-Life Interventions for Advanced Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Predicting Neutropenic Sepsis in Patients with Hematologic Malignancy: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.
×
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