ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2019
Development and Validation of the Hocus Focus Magic Performance Evaluation Scale for Health Professions Personnel in the United States.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contribution of a virtual magic camp to enhancing self-esteem in children with ADHD: A pilot study.Health psychology research · 2021Article
- MAGNITIVE: Effectiveness and Feasibility of a Cognitive Training Program Through Magic Tricks for Children With Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder. A Second Clinical Trial in Community Settings.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
puproseThis study is to describe the development and validation of the Hocus Focus Magic Performance Evaluation Scale (HFMPES) which is used to evaluate the competency of health professions personnel in delivering magic tricks as a therapeutic modality.
methodsA two-phase validation process was used. Phase I content validation involved 16 magician judges who independently rated the relevance of each of the five items in the HFMPES and established the veracity of its content. Phase II was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the HFMPES. This process involved 2 magicians using the HFMPES to independently evaluate 73 occupational therapy graduate students demonstrating three magic tricks.
resultsThe HFMPES achieved an excellent scale-content validity index of .99. Exploratory factor analysis of the HFMPES scores revealed one distinct factor with alpha coefficients ≥.8 across the three magic tricks. The construct validity of the HFMPES scores was further supported by the evidence from the known-groups analysis in which Mann-Whitney U test showed significant difference in HFMPES scores between participants with different levels of experience in delivering the three magic tricks. The inter-rater reliability coefficients were ≥.75 across the three magic tricks, which indicated that evaluation of the competency of health professions personnel in delivering the three magic tricks can be evaluated precisely.
conclusionPreliminary evidence supported the content and construct validity of the HFMPES with good internal consistency and inter-rate reliabilities in evaluating health professions personnel's competency in delivering magic tricks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.