Reduced version of the MBGR protocol: validity based on content and the response processes.

IF 0.9 Q4 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
CoDAS Pub Date : 2026-07-31 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1590/2317-1782/e20250355pt
Asenate Soares de Matos Pereira, Herick Santos Assis, Paola Pereira Leite, Katia Flores Genaro, Giédre Berretin-Felix
{"title":"Reduced version of the MBGR protocol: validity based on content and the response processes.","authors":"Asenate Soares de Matos Pereira, Herick Santos Assis, Paola Pereira Leite, Katia Flores Genaro, Giédre Berretin-Felix","doi":"10.1590/2317-1782/e20250355pt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Considering the clinical need for greater assessment efficiency, this study aimed to present the short version of the MBGR Protocol, addressing the stages of content-based validity evidence and response process validation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A preliminary version of the reduced MBGR Protocol was developed based on the original version and subjected to the Delphi methodology. Content validation was conducted in two rounds, using a Likert scale to assess the relevance and representativeness of the items. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated. For the response process validation, 11 speech- language pathologists (SLPs) were trained, and the protocol was applied to 11 patients, with video recording. Subsequently, the professionals completed a questionnaire, and the responses were analyzed and discussed with an expert committee. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the reduced and original versions, using paired t-tests or the Wilcoxon test, with a significance level set at p<0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial proposal of the reduced protocol included 36 items. Of the 11 invited experts, seven analyzed and provided feedback on each item, leading to the exclusion of 17 items. The content validity evidence yielded a global CVI of 87%. During the response process evaluation, the SLPs reported adequate understanding and applicability of the short version. Most professionals considered the original protocol too extensive and the reduced version more feasible for clinical practice. The suggestions were mostly incorporated by the authors, resulting in adjustments and exclusions that finalized the reduced protocol, with a total score ranging from 0 to 137 points.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reduced version of the MBGR Protocol demonstrated evidence of content validity and response process validation, resulting in a final version with a shorter application time, making it more suitable for clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":46547,"journal":{"name":"CoDAS","volume":"38 5","pages":"e20250355"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13440979/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CoDAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/e20250355pt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Considering the clinical need for greater assessment efficiency, this study aimed to present the short version of the MBGR Protocol, addressing the stages of content-based validity evidence and response process validation.

Methods: A preliminary version of the reduced MBGR Protocol was developed based on the original version and subjected to the Delphi methodology. Content validation was conducted in two rounds, using a Likert scale to assess the relevance and representativeness of the items. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated. For the response process validation, 11 speech- language pathologists (SLPs) were trained, and the protocol was applied to 11 patients, with video recording. Subsequently, the professionals completed a questionnaire, and the responses were analyzed and discussed with an expert committee. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the reduced and original versions, using paired t-tests or the Wilcoxon test, with a significance level set at p<0.05.

Results: The initial proposal of the reduced protocol included 36 items. Of the 11 invited experts, seven analyzed and provided feedback on each item, leading to the exclusion of 17 items. The content validity evidence yielded a global CVI of 87%. During the response process evaluation, the SLPs reported adequate understanding and applicability of the short version. Most professionals considered the original protocol too extensive and the reduced version more feasible for clinical practice. The suggestions were mostly incorporated by the authors, resulting in adjustments and exclusions that finalized the reduced protocol, with a total score ranging from 0 to 137 points.

Conclusion: The reduced version of the MBGR Protocol demonstrated evidence of content validity and response process validation, resulting in a final version with a shorter application time, making it more suitable for clinical use.

MBGR协议的简化版本:基于内容和响应过程的有效性。
目的:考虑到提高评估效率的临床需要,本研究旨在提出MBGR方案的简短版本,解决基于内容的效度证据和反应过程验证阶段。方法:在原始版本的基础上,采用德尔菲法制定了简化MBGR协议的初步版本。内容验证分两轮进行,使用李克特量表评估项目的相关性和代表性。计算内容效度指数(Content Validity Index, CVI)。为验证反应过程,对11名语音语言病理学家(slp)进行培训,并对11名患者应用该方案,并进行录像。随后,专业人员完成一份调查问卷,并与专家委员会进行分析和讨论。采用配对t检验或Wilcoxon检验对简化方案和原始方案进行统计分析,显著性水平设置为results:简化方案的初始建议包括36个项目。在受邀的11位专家中,有7位对每个项目进行了分析和反馈,导致17个项目被排除在外。内容效度证据产生了87%的全球CVI。在响应过程评估中,slp报告了对简短版本的充分理解和适用性。大多数专业人士认为最初的方案过于广泛,而简化的版本更适合临床实践。这些建议大多被作者采纳,进行了调整和排除,最终形成了精简方案,总分在0 - 137分之间。结论:简化版MBGR方案具有内容效度和反应过程验证的证据,最终版本应用时间更短,更适合临床使用。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CoDAS
CoDAS AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
103
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书