健康成人早期生物等效性药代动力学终点研究问卷的编制及效度

Sharad Desai, Nilesh Patel
{"title":"健康成人早期生物等效性药代动力学终点研究问卷的编制及效度","authors":"Sharad Desai, Nilesh Patel","doi":"10.52711/2321-5836.2021.00023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Participation of humans in clinical research is always remained questionable. Hence evaluation of such doubt helps to conclude the perception about such participation. This research presents the process for development and validation of questionnaire for Healthy Adult Human Participants of Early Phase Bioequivalence Pharmacokinetic Endpoint Study. For development of questionnaire, literature search, experts’ discussion and authors’ experience was used for domain identification and its segregation for different variables. For validity of questionnaire, face validity and content validity was performed. Modification was done based on response from experts during non-quantitative face validity. % of overall agreement was 94.55 for question asked in face validity. While, Content Validity Ratio and Content Validity Index was calculated using the process mentioned by Lawshe and Lynn respectively. Initially 83 items were identified but based on validation 84 items were finalized after removal of three and addition of four questions. Deleted three items had Content Validity Ratio of 0.00, 0.67 and 0.67 and which were below accepted level of 0.99. While, I-CVI was observed from range of 0.83 to 1.00 and S-CVI values were above acceptable level of 0.90 for S-CVI (S-CVI/ Ave) and 0.80 for S-CVI (S-CVI/UA) for whole questionnaire and each part.","PeriodicalId":20945,"journal":{"name":"Research Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics","volume":"161 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Validity of Questionnaire for Healthy Adult Human Participants of Early Phase Bioequivalence Pharmacokinetic Endpoint Study\",\"authors\":\"Sharad Desai, Nilesh Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.52711/2321-5836.2021.00023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Participation of humans in clinical research is always remained questionable. Hence evaluation of such doubt helps to conclude the perception about such participation. This research presents the process for development and validation of questionnaire for Healthy Adult Human Participants of Early Phase Bioequivalence Pharmacokinetic Endpoint Study. For development of questionnaire, literature search, experts’ discussion and authors’ experience was used for domain identification and its segregation for different variables. For validity of questionnaire, face validity and content validity was performed. Modification was done based on response from experts during non-quantitative face validity. % of overall agreement was 94.55 for question asked in face validity. While, Content Validity Ratio and Content Validity Index was calculated using the process mentioned by Lawshe and Lynn respectively. Initially 83 items were identified but based on validation 84 items were finalized after removal of three and addition of four questions. Deleted three items had Content Validity Ratio of 0.00, 0.67 and 0.67 and which were below accepted level of 0.99. While, I-CVI was observed from range of 0.83 to 1.00 and S-CVI values were above acceptable level of 0.90 for S-CVI (S-CVI/ Ave) and 0.80 for S-CVI (S-CVI/UA) for whole questionnaire and each part.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics\",\"volume\":\"161 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52711/2321-5836.2021.00023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52711/2321-5836.2021.00023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类参与临床研究一直是有问题的。因此,对这种怀疑的评价有助于总结对这种参与的看法。本研究介绍了健康成人早期生物等效性药代动力学终点研究问卷的编制和验证过程。问卷的编制采用文献检索、专家讨论和作者经验等方法对不同变量进行域识别和分离。对问卷的效度进行了面效度和内容效度。在非定量面孔效度时,根据专家的反馈进行修正。对面效度问题的总体认同率为94.55%。而内容效度比(Content Validity Ratio)和内容效度指数(Content Validity Index)分别采用Lawshe和Lynn提到的方法计算。最初确定了83个问题,但在验证的基础上,删除了3个问题,增加了4个问题,最终确定了84个问题。删除的三项内容效度比分别为0.00、0.67和0.67,均低于0.99的接受水平。而I-CVI在0.83 ~ 1.00之间,S-CVI在全问卷和各部分均高于可接受水平0.90 (S-CVI/ Ave)和0.80 (S-CVI/UA)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and Validity of Questionnaire for Healthy Adult Human Participants of Early Phase Bioequivalence Pharmacokinetic Endpoint Study
Participation of humans in clinical research is always remained questionable. Hence evaluation of such doubt helps to conclude the perception about such participation. This research presents the process for development and validation of questionnaire for Healthy Adult Human Participants of Early Phase Bioequivalence Pharmacokinetic Endpoint Study. For development of questionnaire, literature search, experts’ discussion and authors’ experience was used for domain identification and its segregation for different variables. For validity of questionnaire, face validity and content validity was performed. Modification was done based on response from experts during non-quantitative face validity. % of overall agreement was 94.55 for question asked in face validity. While, Content Validity Ratio and Content Validity Index was calculated using the process mentioned by Lawshe and Lynn respectively. Initially 83 items were identified but based on validation 84 items were finalized after removal of three and addition of four questions. Deleted three items had Content Validity Ratio of 0.00, 0.67 and 0.67 and which were below accepted level of 0.99. While, I-CVI was observed from range of 0.83 to 1.00 and S-CVI values were above acceptable level of 0.90 for S-CVI (S-CVI/ Ave) and 0.80 for S-CVI (S-CVI/UA) for whole questionnaire and each part.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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