言语病理学临床推理评估测试:内容有效性。

IF 0.9 Q4 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
CoDAS Pub Date : 2024-05-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt
Ana Cristina Côrtes Gama, Aline Mansueto Mourão, Adriane Mesquita Medeiros, Patrícia Cotta Mancini, Thais Helena Machado, Lara Gama Santos, Nayara Ribeiro Gomes
{"title":"言语病理学临床推理评估测试:内容有效性。","authors":"Ana Cristina Côrtes Gama, Aline Mansueto Mourão, Adriane Mesquita Medeiros, Patrícia Cotta Mancini, Thais Helena Machado, Lara Gama Santos, Nayara Ribeiro Gomes","doi":"10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master's degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":46547,"journal":{"name":"CoDAS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189150/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test for clinical reasoning evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology: content validity.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Cristina Côrtes Gama, Aline Mansueto Mourão, Adriane Mesquita Medeiros, Patrícia Cotta Mancini, Thais Helena Machado, Lara Gama Santos, Nayara Ribeiro Gomes\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master's degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46547,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CoDAS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189150/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CoDAS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CoDAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:验证名为 FonoTCS 的言语病理学一致性测试的内容:这是对测验内容的验证研究。五位语言病理学家均拥有博士学位和教学经验,平均从业年限为 24.8 年,他们参与了 FonoTCS 的开发,并在开发过程中达成了共识。共创建了 30 个问题和 120 个条目,涵盖三个领域的七个言语病理专业领域。为了进行内容验证,FonoTCS 以电子版形式发送给 15 位评估者,让他们回答问卷中的五个问题,并根据问题的清晰度、道德性和相关性等标准进行五级评分。对所有陈述都计算了校正内容有效性系数,以分析答复情况。对同意率等于或低于 80% 的问题进行了修订:参与分析的 13 位评估员均为女性,平均年龄为 39.07 岁,其中 8 位拥有硕士学位,5 位拥有博士学位,平均临床实践经验为 15.38 年。清晰度标准的校正内容效度系数平均值为 0.93 和 0.95,相关性标准的校正内容效度系数平均值为 0.98 和 0.92,道德标准的校正内容效度系数平均值为 0.99。两个问题的得分分别为 0.78 和 0.80,均与评估/诊断领域中的听力学有关,特别是有关相关性标准的问题 2。评委对这些问题进行了审查和重组:从内容角度来看,FonoTCS 是一个有效的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Test for clinical reasoning evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology: content validity.

Purpose: To validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS.

Methods: This is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised.

Results: Thirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master's degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges.

Conclusion: FonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信