Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33227007›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Community partners' responses to items assessing stakeholder engagement: Cognitive response testing in measure development.

Vetta L Sanders Thompson, Nora Leahy, Nicole Ackermann, Deborah J Bowen, Melody S Goodman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Using Cognitive Interviewing to Develop Rating Scales of Suicide Thoughts and Behaviors in Preadolescent Children.The journal of applied research on children : informing policy for children at risk · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Research Engagement Survey Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Vetta L Sanders ThompsonWashington University in St. Louis, Brown School, St. Louis, MI, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0415-9196
Nora LeahyWashington University in St. Louis, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MI, United States of America.
Nicole AckermannWashington University in St. Louis, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MI, United States of America.
Deborah J BowenUniversity of Washington, Department of Bioethics and Humanities, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Melody S GoodmanNew York University, School of Global Public Health, New York, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8932-624X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite recognition of the importance of stakeholder input into research, there is a lack of validated measures to assess how well constituencies are engaged and their input integrated into research design. Measurement theory suggests that a community engagement measure should use clear and simple language and capture important components of underlying constructs, resulting in a valid measure that is accessible to a broad audience.

objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to evaluate how community members understood and responded to a measure of community engagement developed to be reliable, valid, easily administered, and broadly usable.

methodCognitive response interviews were completed, during which participants described their reactions to items and how they processed them. Participants were asked to interpret item meaning, paraphrase items, and identify difficult or problematic terms and phrases, as well as provide any concerns with response options while responding to 16 of 32 survey items.

resultsThe results of the cognitive response interviews of participants (N = 16) suggest concerns about plain language and literacy, clarity of question focus, and the lack of context clues to facilitate processing in response to items querying research experience. Minimal concerns were related to response options. Participants suggested changes in words and terms, as well as item structure.

conclusionQualitative research can improve the validity and accessibility of measures that assess stakeholder experience of community-engaged research. The findings suggest wording and sentence structure changes that improve ability to assess implementation of community engagement and its impact on research outcomes.

Indexed as

Stakeholder ParticipationAdultAgedCognitionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33227007
PMCPMC7682898

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.