对新型认知筛查 "盖洛德职业治疗认知"(GOT-Cog)进行内容有效性测试,以改进住院职业治疗治疗计划。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Henry C Hrdlicka, Emily Meise, John Corbett, Amanda Meyer, Pete Grevelding
{"title":"对新型认知筛查 \"盖洛德职业治疗认知\"(GOT-Cog)进行内容有效性测试,以改进住院职业治疗治疗计划。","authors":"Henry C Hrdlicka, Emily Meise, John Corbett, Amanda Meyer, Pete Grevelding","doi":"10.5014/ajot.2024.050306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>No single cognitive screen adequately captures all cognitive domains that are important for inpatient occupational therapy treatment planning.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify the content validity of a novel 22-item cognitive screen, the Gaylord Occupational Therapy Cognitive (GOT-Cog) screen, developed to better inform inpatient occupational therapy treatment planning.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Delphi-style expert panel review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Long-term acute care hospital.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The first panel was attended by four occupational therapists, two speech-language pathologists, one physician assistant, and two neuropsychologists; the second, by four occupational therapists, one speech-language pathologist, and one physician assistant.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Each Delphi panel discussed the relevance, essentiality, and clarity of each item. After each discussion, panelists completed a content validity survey to summarize their evaluation of each item.</p><p><strong>Outcomes and measures: </strong>On the basis of panelists' survey responses, item- and scale-level relevance, essentiality, and clarity were quantified by calculating the respective content validity index (CVI), content validity ratio (CVR), and content clarity index (CCI). Universal agreement (UA) and κ statistics were also calculated, as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Upon presenting the initial 23-item instrument covering 10 cognitive domains to the first Delphi panel, several questions were added, removed, or rewritten, resulting in a 22-item instrument representing nine domains. After the second panel, several questions were again rewritten, and the domains reorganized. All scale-level metrics improved, including CVI (from 0.87 to 1.0), UA (0.52 to 1.0), CVR (0.43 to 0.94), and CCI (2.26 to 2.92).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>GOT-Cog displays overall excellent content validity and can proceed to construct validity testing. Plain-Language Summary: By reporting on the content validity of the Gaylord Occupational Therapy Cognitive screen, this brief report begins the necessary process of evaluating the measure's overall validity and reliability.</p>","PeriodicalId":48317,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Content Validity Testing of a Novel Cognitive Screen, the Gaylord Occupational Therapy Cognitive (GOT-Cog), to Improve Inpatient Occupational Therapy Treatment Planning.\",\"authors\":\"Henry C Hrdlicka, Emily Meise, John Corbett, Amanda Meyer, Pete Grevelding\",\"doi\":\"10.5014/ajot.2024.050306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>No single cognitive screen adequately captures all cognitive domains that are important for inpatient occupational therapy treatment planning.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify the content validity of a novel 22-item cognitive screen, the Gaylord Occupational Therapy Cognitive (GOT-Cog) screen, developed to better inform inpatient occupational therapy treatment planning.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Delphi-style expert panel review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Long-term acute care hospital.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The first panel was attended by four occupational therapists, two speech-language pathologists, one physician assistant, and two neuropsychologists; the second, by four occupational therapists, one speech-language pathologist, and one physician assistant.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Each Delphi panel discussed the relevance, essentiality, and clarity of each item. After each discussion, panelists completed a content validity survey to summarize their evaluation of each item.</p><p><strong>Outcomes and measures: </strong>On the basis of panelists' survey responses, item- and scale-level relevance, essentiality, and clarity were quantified by calculating the respective content validity index (CVI), content validity ratio (CVR), and content clarity index (CCI). Universal agreement (UA) and κ statistics were also calculated, as appropriate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Upon presenting the initial 23-item instrument covering 10 cognitive domains to the first Delphi panel, several questions were added, removed, or rewritten, resulting in a 22-item instrument representing nine domains. After the second panel, several questions were again rewritten, and the domains reorganized. All scale-level metrics improved, including CVI (from 0.87 to 1.0), UA (0.52 to 1.0), CVR (0.43 to 0.94), and CCI (2.26 to 2.92).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>GOT-Cog displays overall excellent content validity and can proceed to construct validity testing. Plain-Language Summary: By reporting on the content validity of the Gaylord Occupational Therapy Cognitive screen, this brief report begins the necessary process of evaluating the measure's overall validity and reliability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050306\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050306","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:没有一种认知筛查能充分捕捉到对住院职业疗法治疗计划非常重要的所有认知领域:目的: 量化新颖的 22 项认知筛查(盖洛德职业治疗认知筛查(GOT-Cog))的内容效度:设计:德尔菲式专家小组评审:环境:长期急症护理医院:第一个专家组由四名职业治疗师、两名语言病理学家、一名助理医师和两名神经心理学家组成;第二个专家组由四名职业治疗师、一名语言病理学家和一名助理医师组成:每个德尔菲小组讨论每个项目的相关性、重要性和清晰度。每次讨论结束后,专家组成员都会填写一份内容有效性调查,总结他们对每个项目的评价:根据小组成员的调查回答,通过计算各自的内容效度指数(CVI)、内容效度比(CVR)和内容清晰度指数(CCI),对项目和量表层面的相关性、基本性和清晰度进行量化。此外,还酌情计算了普遍一致性(UA)和κ统计量:在向第一个德尔菲小组提交了涵盖 10 个认知领域的 23 个项目的初始工具后,增加、删除或改写了几个问题,最终形成了代表 9 个领域的 22 个项目的工具。在第二次小组讨论之后,又重新编写了几个问题,并对领域进行了重组。所有量表级指标均有所改善,包括 CVI(从 0.87 升至 1.0)、UA(从 0.52 升至 1.0)、CVR(从 0.43 升至 0.94)和 CCI(从 2.26 升至 2.92):GOT-Cog总体上显示出极佳的内容效度,可以进行构建效度测试。通俗易懂的总结:通过报告盖洛德职业治疗认知屏幕的内容效度,这份简短的报告开始了评估该测量方法整体效度和信度的必要过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Content Validity Testing of a Novel Cognitive Screen, the Gaylord Occupational Therapy Cognitive (GOT-Cog), to Improve Inpatient Occupational Therapy Treatment Planning.

Importance: No single cognitive screen adequately captures all cognitive domains that are important for inpatient occupational therapy treatment planning.

Objective: To quantify the content validity of a novel 22-item cognitive screen, the Gaylord Occupational Therapy Cognitive (GOT-Cog) screen, developed to better inform inpatient occupational therapy treatment planning.

Design: Delphi-style expert panel review.

Setting: Long-term acute care hospital.

Participants: The first panel was attended by four occupational therapists, two speech-language pathologists, one physician assistant, and two neuropsychologists; the second, by four occupational therapists, one speech-language pathologist, and one physician assistant.

Intervention: Each Delphi panel discussed the relevance, essentiality, and clarity of each item. After each discussion, panelists completed a content validity survey to summarize their evaluation of each item.

Outcomes and measures: On the basis of panelists' survey responses, item- and scale-level relevance, essentiality, and clarity were quantified by calculating the respective content validity index (CVI), content validity ratio (CVR), and content clarity index (CCI). Universal agreement (UA) and κ statistics were also calculated, as appropriate.

Results: Upon presenting the initial 23-item instrument covering 10 cognitive domains to the first Delphi panel, several questions were added, removed, or rewritten, resulting in a 22-item instrument representing nine domains. After the second panel, several questions were again rewritten, and the domains reorganized. All scale-level metrics improved, including CVI (from 0.87 to 1.0), UA (0.52 to 1.0), CVR (0.43 to 0.94), and CCI (2.26 to 2.92).

Conclusions and relevance: GOT-Cog displays overall excellent content validity and can proceed to construct validity testing. Plain-Language Summary: By reporting on the content validity of the Gaylord Occupational Therapy Cognitive screen, this brief report begins the necessary process of evaluating the measure's overall validity and reliability.

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
3.10
自引率
10.30%
发文量
406
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) is an official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc. and is published 6 times per year. This peer reviewed journal focuses on research, practice, and health care issues in the field of occupational therapy. AOTA members receive 6 issues of AJOT per year and have online access to archived abstracts and full-text articles. Nonmembers may view abstracts online but must purchase full-text articles.
×
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