Sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in determining the incomprehensible items by older people: Empirical evidence of testing 106 quality-of-life items

IF 2.2 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Aging Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-19 DOI:10.1002/agm2.12254
Simon Ching Lam, Lorna Kwai Ping Suen, Emma Yun-Zhi Huang, Eliza Mi Ling Wong, Daphne Sze Ki Cheung, Rick Yiu Cho Kwan
{"title":"Sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in determining the incomprehensible items by older people: Empirical evidence of testing 106 quality-of-life items","authors":"Simon Ching Lam,&nbsp;Lorna Kwai Ping Suen,&nbsp;Emma Yun-Zhi Huang,&nbsp;Eliza Mi Ling Wong,&nbsp;Daphne Sze Ki Cheung,&nbsp;Rick Yiu Cho Kwan","doi":"10.1002/agm2.12254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This methodological research aimed to investigate and compare the sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in identifying incomprehensible items empirically.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A purposive sample of 15 older people living in three residential care homes (RCHs) in Hong Kong was used to evaluate a newly developed 106 items covering seven quality-of-life dimensions. The abbreviated Mental Test (Hong Kong version; AMT) was used as a screening tool for excluding those with impaired cognition. The interview was audiotaped, and incomprehensible items were identified by the research panel accordingly (served as the gold standard). The socio-demographics of the respondents were described. Understandability (yes/no, conventional face validation method) and interpretability (4-point Likert scale, new method) were compared and used to compute the <i>Kappa</i> value (representing chance agreement), sensitivity, and specificity analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Fifteen older people were interviewed and responded to the structured interview of 106 items regarding understandability and interpretability. 61 items (57%) obtained 100% positive understandability while only 35 items (33%) obtained 100% correct interpretability.</p>\n \n <p>The <i>Kappa</i> coefficient was 0.388 (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) of the chance agreement between understandability and interpretability. The panel confirmed that 32% of items required revision (i.e., incomprehensible items). The false negative rate of using the conventional approach was up to 70.59% while both the false positive and negative rates of using the new approach were low (0%–5.88%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This empirical evidence indicated that the conventional approach of face validation for checking incomprehensible items by older people encountered a high false negative rate. On the contrary, the new approach was recommended because it demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity and low false positive and negative rates in identifying incomprehensible items.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":32862,"journal":{"name":"Aging Medicine","volume":"6 3","pages":"230-238"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f0/58/AGM2-6-230.PMC10498830.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agm2.12254","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This methodological research aimed to investigate and compare the sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in identifying incomprehensible items empirically.

Methods

A purposive sample of 15 older people living in three residential care homes (RCHs) in Hong Kong was used to evaluate a newly developed 106 items covering seven quality-of-life dimensions. The abbreviated Mental Test (Hong Kong version; AMT) was used as a screening tool for excluding those with impaired cognition. The interview was audiotaped, and incomprehensible items were identified by the research panel accordingly (served as the gold standard). The socio-demographics of the respondents were described. Understandability (yes/no, conventional face validation method) and interpretability (4-point Likert scale, new method) were compared and used to compute the Kappa value (representing chance agreement), sensitivity, and specificity analysis.

Results

Fifteen older people were interviewed and responded to the structured interview of 106 items regarding understandability and interpretability. 61 items (57%) obtained 100% positive understandability while only 35 items (33%) obtained 100% correct interpretability.

The Kappa coefficient was 0.388 (P < 0.001) of the chance agreement between understandability and interpretability. The panel confirmed that 32% of items required revision (i.e., incomprehensible items). The false negative rate of using the conventional approach was up to 70.59% while both the false positive and negative rates of using the new approach were low (0%–5.88%).

Conclusion

This empirical evidence indicated that the conventional approach of face validation for checking incomprehensible items by older people encountered a high false negative rate. On the contrary, the new approach was recommended because it demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity and low false positive and negative rates in identifying incomprehensible items.

Abstract Image

传统和新面孔验证在确定老年人难以理解项目中的敏感性和特异性:106个生活质量项目测试的经验证据
目的通过实证研究,比较传统人脸验证和新人脸验证在识别难以理解项目上的敏感性和特异性。方法以香港三所安老院舍的15名老年人为研究对象,对生活质量的7个维度新编制的106个项目进行评估。简易智力测验(香港版);AMT作为排除认知障碍患者的筛选工具。对访谈进行录音,研究小组据此确定难以理解的项目(作为金标准)。描述了受访者的社会人口统计学特征。比较可理解性(是/否,传统的人脸验证方法)和可解释性(4点李克特量表,新方法),并用于计算Kappa值(代表机会一致性),敏感性和特异性分析。结果对15名老年人进行了访谈,并对106个可理解性和可解释性问题进行了结构化访谈。61项(57%)获得100%的积极可理解性,而只有35项(33%)获得100%的正确可理解性。可理解性与可解释性的机会一致性Kappa系数为0.388 (P < 0.001)。小组确认32%的项目需要修订(即无法理解的项目)。使用常规方法的假阴性率高达70.59%,而使用新方法的假阳性和阴性率均较低(0% ~ 5.88%)。结论采用传统的人脸验证方法对老年人的不理解项目进行检测存在较高的假阴性率。相反,新方法被推荐,因为它在识别难以理解的项目方面具有高灵敏度和特异性,假阳性和阴性率低。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Aging Medicine
Aging Medicine Medicine-Geriatrics and Gerontology
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信