Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25881584›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015

A new method for assessing content validity in model-based creation and iteration of eHealth interventions.

Nancy Kassam-Adams, Meghan L Marsac, Kristen L Kohser, Justin A Kenardy, Sonja March, Flaura K Winston

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Designing a Needs-Oriented Psychological Intervention for Chinese Women Undergoing an Abortion.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nancy Kassam-AdamsCenter for Injury Research and Prevention, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States. nlkaphd@mail.med.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7412-1428
University of Pennsylvania · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USUniversity of Queensland · AUUniversity of Southern Queensland · AU

Funding

Promoting positive adjustment to medical events in childrenR21HD069832 · NICHD · CHILDREN'S HOSP OF PHILADELPHIA · PI KASSAM-ADAMS, NANCY · 2012 to 2013
$452k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD069832NICHD NIH HHS R21HD069832
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe advent of eHealth interventions to address psychological concerns and health behaviors has created new opportunities, including the ability to optimize the effectiveness of intervention activities and then deliver these activities consistently to a large number of individuals in need. Given that eHealth interventions grounded in a well-delineated theoretical model for change are more likely to be effective and that eHealth interventions can be costly to develop, assuring the match of final intervention content and activities to the underlying model is a key step. We propose to apply the concept of "content validity" as a crucial checkpoint to evaluate the extent to which proposed intervention activities in an eHealth intervention program are valid (eg, relevant and likely to be effective) for the specific mechanism of change that each is intended to target and the intended target population for the intervention.

objectiveThe aims of this paper are to define content validity as it applies to model-based eHealth intervention development, to present a feasible method for assessing content validity in this context, and to describe the implementation of this new method during the development of a Web-based intervention for children.

methodsWe designed a practical 5-step method for assessing content validity in eHealth interventions that includes defining key intervention targets, delineating intervention activity-target pairings, identifying experts and using a survey tool to gather expert ratings of the relevance of each activity to its intended target, its likely effectiveness in achieving the intended target, and its appropriateness with a specific intended audience, and then using quantitative and qualitative results to identify intervention activities that may need modification. We applied this method during our development of the Coping Coach Web-based intervention for school-age children.

resultsIn the evaluation of Coping Coach content validity, 15 experts from five countries rated each of 15 intervention activity-target pairings. Based on quantitative indices, content validity was excellent for relevance and good for likely effectiveness and age-appropriateness. Two intervention activities had item-level indicators that suggested the need for further review and potential revision by the development team.

conclusionsThis project demonstrated that assessment of content validity can be straightforward and feasible to implement and that results of this assessment provide useful information for ongoing development and iterations of new eHealth interventions, complementing other sources of information (eg, user feedback, effectiveness evaluations). This approach can be utilized at one or more points during the development process to guide ongoing optimization of eHealth interventions.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorAdaptation, PsychologicalChildFemaleHumansMedical InformaticsProgram DevelopmentQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignStress Disorders, Post-TraumaticTelemedicinechildmethodssecondary preventionstress disorders, post-traumatictelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID25881584
PMCPMC4414959
OpenAlexW2137775396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.