把职业平衡放在雷达上:11 项丹麦职业平衡问卷的内容有效性

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION British Journal of Occupational Therapy Pub Date : 2023-11-29 DOI:10.1177/03080226231207277
H. Honoré, Mette Boll, A. Ø. Hansen, H. K. Kristensen
{"title":"把职业平衡放在雷达上:11 项丹麦职业平衡问卷的内容有效性","authors":"H. Honoré, Mette Boll, A. Ø. Hansen, H. K. Kristensen","doi":"10.1177/03080226231207277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessment of occupational balance is of clinical relevance for occupational therapists working with patients with reduced occupational performance. Clinical practice lacks validated assessment tools to measure occupational balance. To establish the content validity of the 11-item Danish version of the Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ-DK) with a radar chart add-on for use in occupational therapy practice. A convergent mixed-methods study was performed investigating content validity. Three group interviews were conducted in 3 settings with 12 occupational therapists. A deductive content analysis covered face validity, relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility. The relevance of the 11 items was further assessed using a content validity index. All items were found to be relevant to the construct of occupational balance. Even so, concerns were raised regarding content validity. The comprehensiveness was questioned regarding the coverage of the balance of meaningful occupations. Comprehensibility was questioned for 6 of the 11 items, and the response scale. Content validity was investigated. The doubts raised in relation to comprehensiveness call for new wordings or elaborate instructions to enhance constructional clarity. The response scale levels should be adapted.","PeriodicalId":49096,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putting occupational balance on the radar: Content validity of the 11-item Danish Occupational Balance Questionnaire\",\"authors\":\"H. Honoré, Mette Boll, A. Ø. Hansen, H. K. Kristensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03080226231207277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Assessment of occupational balance is of clinical relevance for occupational therapists working with patients with reduced occupational performance. Clinical practice lacks validated assessment tools to measure occupational balance. To establish the content validity of the 11-item Danish version of the Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ-DK) with a radar chart add-on for use in occupational therapy practice. A convergent mixed-methods study was performed investigating content validity. Three group interviews were conducted in 3 settings with 12 occupational therapists. A deductive content analysis covered face validity, relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility. The relevance of the 11 items was further assessed using a content validity index. All items were found to be relevant to the construct of occupational balance. Even so, concerns were raised regarding content validity. The comprehensiveness was questioned regarding the coverage of the balance of meaningful occupations. Comprehensibility was questioned for 6 of the 11 items, and the response scale. Content validity was investigated. The doubts raised in relation to comprehensiveness call for new wordings or elaborate instructions to enhance constructional clarity. The response scale levels should be adapted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226231207277\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03080226231207277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

职业平衡评估对职业治疗师治疗职业能力下降的患者具有临床意义。临床实践中缺乏有效的评估工具来测量职业平衡。旨在确定 11 个项目的丹麦版职业平衡问卷(OBQ-DK)的内容有效性,并将雷达图附加到职业治疗实践中。为调查内容有效性,我们开展了一项收敛性混合方法研究。在 3 个环境中对 12 名职业治疗师进行了 3 次小组访谈。演绎式内容分析涵盖了表面效度、相关性、全面性和可理解性。使用内容效度指数进一步评估了 11 个项目的相关性。结果发现,所有项目都与职业平衡这一概念相关。尽管如此,还是有人对内容有效性提出了担忧。关于有意义职业平衡的覆盖范围,其全面性受到质疑。11 个项目中的 6 个项目和反应量表的可理解性受到质疑。对内容有效性进行了调查。对全面性提出的质疑要求采用新的措辞或详细的说明,以提高结构的清晰度。应对反应量表的等级进行调整。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Putting occupational balance on the radar: Content validity of the 11-item Danish Occupational Balance Questionnaire
Assessment of occupational balance is of clinical relevance for occupational therapists working with patients with reduced occupational performance. Clinical practice lacks validated assessment tools to measure occupational balance. To establish the content validity of the 11-item Danish version of the Occupational Balance Questionnaire (OBQ-DK) with a radar chart add-on for use in occupational therapy practice. A convergent mixed-methods study was performed investigating content validity. Three group interviews were conducted in 3 settings with 12 occupational therapists. A deductive content analysis covered face validity, relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility. The relevance of the 11 items was further assessed using a content validity index. All items were found to be relevant to the construct of occupational balance. Even so, concerns were raised regarding content validity. The comprehensiveness was questioned regarding the coverage of the balance of meaningful occupations. Comprehensibility was questioned for 6 of the 11 items, and the response scale. Content validity was investigated. The doubts raised in relation to comprehensiveness call for new wordings or elaborate instructions to enhance constructional clarity. The response scale levels should be adapted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: British Journal of Occupational Therapy (BJOT) is the official journal of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists. Its purpose is to publish articles with international relevance that advance knowledge in research, practice, education, and management in occupational therapy. It is a monthly peer reviewed publication that disseminates evidence on the effectiveness, benefit, and value of occupational therapy so that occupational therapists, service users, and key stakeholders can make informed decisions. BJOT publishes research articles, reviews, practice analyses, opinion pieces, editorials, letters to the editor and book reviews. It also regularly publishes special issues on topics relevant to occupational therapy.
期刊最新文献
Daily living skills in adolescents with and without language disorder, measured using the WHEEL OF INDEPENDENCETM framework Class of international functioning disability and health core sets for autism spectrum disorder: Occupational therapists’ perspective Exploring the usefulness of real-time digitally supported fatigue monitoring in fatigue management: Perspectives from occupational therapists and brain injury survivors Mindset and participation: Correlations among healthy children Exploration of collaborative goal setting in occupational therapy for adults with aphasia
×
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