脑卒中后幸存者重返工作评估的内容和结构验证。

IF 1 Q4 REHABILITATION South African Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2022-10-27 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1790
Peter O Ibikunle, Anthea Rhoda, Mario R Smith, Ushotanefe Useh
{"title":"脑卒中后幸存者重返工作评估的内容和结构验证。","authors":"Peter O Ibikunle,&nbsp;Anthea Rhoda,&nbsp;Mario R Smith,&nbsp;Ushotanefe Useh","doi":"10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Validation of an instrument consist of three main types: content, criterion and construct. Content validity needs to be determined in order for an instrument to be acceptable for use, validity establishes the fact that an instrument measures exactly what it proposes to measure. The Return-to-work assessment scale (RAS) was developed to measure three aspects of return to work: (Personal factors and/or issues, work issues and contextual factors) in 2021.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To report on the processes followed in establishing the face and content validity of the RAS.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty participants took part in our study, they were selected purposively and conveniently from a pool of professionals and post stroke survivors. The Delphi survey technique was used to arrive at consensus and professional opinion on the items included in the RAS. Consensus was sought on the items, domains and subdomains included in the RAS that was used to assess return-to-work after a stroke. Our study was concluded after the third round.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>One item was remove out of the original 86, three (3) domains made up of eleven (11) subdomains were retained. The RAS had consensus of 100% after three rounds of scrutiny for all items.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RAS was found to be valid, thereby establishing its face and content validity.</p><p><strong>Clinical implication: </strong>The RAS is valid and was recommended for psychometric testing which was the next stage after face and content validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":44180,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9634941/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of content and structure of the Return-to-work assessment for post-stroke survivors.\",\"authors\":\"Peter O Ibikunle,&nbsp;Anthea Rhoda,&nbsp;Mario R Smith,&nbsp;Ushotanefe Useh\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1790\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Validation of an instrument consist of three main types: content, criterion and construct. Content validity needs to be determined in order for an instrument to be acceptable for use, validity establishes the fact that an instrument measures exactly what it proposes to measure. The Return-to-work assessment scale (RAS) was developed to measure three aspects of return to work: (Personal factors and/or issues, work issues and contextual factors) in 2021.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To report on the processes followed in establishing the face and content validity of the RAS.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty participants took part in our study, they were selected purposively and conveniently from a pool of professionals and post stroke survivors. The Delphi survey technique was used to arrive at consensus and professional opinion on the items included in the RAS. Consensus was sought on the items, domains and subdomains included in the RAS that was used to assess return-to-work after a stroke. Our study was concluded after the third round.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>One item was remove out of the original 86, three (3) domains made up of eleven (11) subdomains were retained. The RAS had consensus of 100% after three rounds of scrutiny for all items.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RAS was found to be valid, thereby establishing its face and content validity.</p><p><strong>Clinical implication: </strong>The RAS is valid and was recommended for psychometric testing which was the next stage after face and content validity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9634941/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1790\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v78i1.1790","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:仪器验证主要包括三种类型:内容验证、标准验证和结构验证。内容效度需要确定,以使工具可以接受使用,效度建立了一个事实,即一个工具准确地测量了它打算测量的内容。回归工作评估量表(RAS)旨在衡量2021年回归工作的三个方面:(个人因素和/或问题,工作问题和环境因素)。目的:报道RAS量表的面孔效度和内容效度的建立过程。方法:有目的和方便地从专业人员和中风后幸存者中选择了20名参与者。采用德尔菲调查技术对RAS所包括的项目达成共识和专业意见。就RAS中用于评估中风后恢复工作的项目、领域和子领域寻求共识。我们的研究在第三轮之后就结束了。结果:从原来的86个域名中删除了一个项目,保留了由11个子域名组成的3个域名。RAS在对所有项目进行了三轮审查后,达成了100%的共识。结论:该量表有效,从而建立了量表的表面效度和内容效度。临床意义:RAS是有效的,被推荐用于心理测试,这是继面部和内容效度之后的下一个阶段。
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
Validation of content and structure of the Return-to-work assessment for post-stroke survivors.

Background: Validation of an instrument consist of three main types: content, criterion and construct. Content validity needs to be determined in order for an instrument to be acceptable for use, validity establishes the fact that an instrument measures exactly what it proposes to measure. The Return-to-work assessment scale (RAS) was developed to measure three aspects of return to work: (Personal factors and/or issues, work issues and contextual factors) in 2021.

Objective: To report on the processes followed in establishing the face and content validity of the RAS.

Method: Twenty participants took part in our study, they were selected purposively and conveniently from a pool of professionals and post stroke survivors. The Delphi survey technique was used to arrive at consensus and professional opinion on the items included in the RAS. Consensus was sought on the items, domains and subdomains included in the RAS that was used to assess return-to-work after a stroke. Our study was concluded after the third round.

Result: One item was remove out of the original 86, three (3) domains made up of eleven (11) subdomains were retained. The RAS had consensus of 100% after three rounds of scrutiny for all items.

Conclusion: The RAS was found to be valid, thereby establishing its face and content validity.

Clinical implication: The RAS is valid and was recommended for psychometric testing which was the next stage after face and content validity.

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
1.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
35
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Training, care delivery, and research in physiotherapy in sub-Saharan French-speaking Africa. Treatment of balance with Computerised Dynamic Posturography therapy in chronic hemiplegic patients. The impact of rehabilitation on the community life of stroke survivors in Accra, Ghana. Exercise dosage to facilitate the recovery of balance, walking, and quality of life after stroke. The efficacy of injury screening for lower back pain in elite golfers.
×
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