Content validity of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6) for use with adults with acquired brain injury (ABI): An international Delphi study

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q2 REHABILITATION Australian Occupational Therapy Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1111/1440-1630.13012

Christiana D'Cunha, Lauren J. Christie, Annie McCluskey, Liana S. Cahill

{"title":"Content validity of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6) for use with adults with acquired brain injury (ABI): An international Delphi study","authors":"Christiana D'Cunha, Lauren J. Christie, Annie McCluskey, Liana S. Cahill","doi":"10.1111/1440-1630.13012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Occupational therapists are responsible for assessing adult handwriting following stroke and other acquired brain injuries. The Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB) was developed for use as a diagnostic assessment tool and outcome measure. The current study aimed to investigate the content validity of version six of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A three round, online-Delphi study was conducted with an international group of expert clinicians and academics experienced in adult handwriting assessment and/or retraining. In round one, participants rated the importance of HAB-v6 domains and the six subtests and recommended modifications to administration and/or scoring procedures. In rounds two and three, participants were re-presented with several HAB-v6 domains where consensus was not reached and rated the importance of suggested modifications from round one. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Consumer and Community Involvement</h3>\n \n <p>Consumers and community members were not involved in this study.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Fifteen participants from the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and Australia completed round one of the Delphi, 11 participants completed round two, and 15 participants completed round three. In round one, high consensus (>70% participant agreement) was achieved regarding the importance of 5/6 subtests of the HAB-v6; suggestions were made to modify three subtests and add new subtests. In round two, high consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved on three proposed revisions: adding two subtests and modifying instructions for the copying subtest. In round three, low consensus regarding inclusion of the dots drawing subtest remained.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Based on the Delphi process, the content of five of six subtests of the HAB-v6 are valid for use by occupational therapists and others to measure adult handwriting performance, with the exception of the dots subtest, where consensus was not reached.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55418,"journal":{"name":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1440-1630.13012","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Occupational Therapy Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1440-1630.13012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Occupational therapists are responsible for assessing adult handwriting following stroke and other acquired brain injuries. The Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB) was developed for use as a diagnostic assessment tool and outcome measure. The current study aimed to investigate the content validity of version six of the Handwriting Assessment Battery (HAB-v6).

Methods

A three round, online-Delphi study was conducted with an international group of expert clinicians and academics experienced in adult handwriting assessment and/or retraining. In round one, participants rated the importance of HAB-v6 domains and the six subtests and recommended modifications to administration and/or scoring procedures. In rounds two and three, participants were re-presented with several HAB-v6 domains where consensus was not reached and rated the importance of suggested modifications from round one. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis.

Consumer and Community Involvement

Consumers and community members were not involved in this study.

Results

Fifteen participants from the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, and Australia completed round one of the Delphi, 11 participants completed round two, and 15 participants completed round three. In round one, high consensus (>70% participant agreement) was achieved regarding the importance of 5/6 subtests of the HAB-v6; suggestions were made to modify three subtests and add new subtests. In round two, high consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved on three proposed revisions: adding two subtests and modifying instructions for the copying subtest. In round three, low consensus regarding inclusion of the dots drawing subtest remained.

Conclusion

Based on the Delphi process, the content of five of six subtests of the HAB-v6 are valid for use by occupational therapists and others to measure adult handwriting performance, with the exception of the dots subtest, where consensus was not reached.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

2.80

自引率

16.70%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Australian Occupational Therapy Journal is a leading international peer reviewed publication presenting influential, high quality innovative scholarship and research relevant to occupational therapy. The aim of the journal is to be a leader in the dissemination of scholarship and evidence to substantiate, influence and shape policy and occupational therapy practice locally and globally. The journal publishes empirical studies, theoretical papers, and reviews. Preference will be given to manuscripts that have a sound theoretical basis, methodological rigour with sufficient scope and scale to make important new contributions to the occupational therapy body of knowledge. AOTJ does not publish protocols for any study design The journal will consider multidisciplinary or interprofessional studies that include occupational therapy, occupational therapists or occupational therapy students, so long as ‘key points’ highlight the specific implications for occupational therapy, occupational therapists and/or occupational therapy students and/or consumers.