Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34574998›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Content and Face Validation of a Novel, Interactive Nutrition Specific Physical Exam Competency Tool (INSPECT) to Evaluate Registered Dietitians' Competence: A Delphi Consensus from the United States.

Sunitha Zechariah, Jennifer L Waller, Gianluca De Leo, Judith Stallings, Ashley J Gess, Leigh Lehman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sunitha ZechariahCollege of Allied Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8020-4921
Jennifer L WallerMedical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4066-4541
Gianluca De LeoCollege of Allied Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6836-8360
Judith StallingsCollege of Allied Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
Ashley J GessCollege of Education, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1327-791X
Leigh LehmanSchool of Occupational Therapy, Brenau University, Gainesville, GA 30501, USA.
Augusta University Health · USAugusta University · USBrenau University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The nutrition-focused physical examination (NFPE) is an integral component of nutrition assessment performed by registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) to determine signs of malnutrition and other nutrition-related complications. Increased use of this essential skill among RDNs and the transformation of dietetics education to a competency-based model in the near future calls for appropriately validated tools to measure RDNs' NFPE competence. To fill the need for a validated competency tool, this study developed an Interactive Nutrition-Specific Physical Exam Competency Tool (INSPECT) utilizing the initial 70 items identified in the first phase of the study. The second phase of this study aimed to test the preliminary version of the INSPECT for content and face validity. An expert panel of 17 members provided consensus recommendations through the Delphi process. Internal consistency of the consensus was measured with Cronbach's alpha (α) and α of ≥0.70 was defined as acceptable a priori. Inter-rater agreement among the expert panel was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and an a priori ICC of 0.75 to 0.9 was established as good and >0.9 as excellent agreement. The results showed acceptable face validity (α = 0.71) and excellent content validity for the INSPECT, with an internal consistency of α = 0.97 in the first round and α = 0.96 in the second round. The inter-rater agreement was also excellent with ICC = 0.95 for each of the Delphi rounds. A total of 52 items were retained from the preliminary version of the INSPECT. Open feedback from the experts allowed for the consolidation of 11 similar items for better scoring and evaluation and thus, a total of 41 items were included in the final version of the INSPECT. The final version of the INSPECT is currently being studied in real-life, multi-site clinical settings among practicing RDNs to examine construct validity, reliability, and item-level psychometric properties. Ultimately, the validated INSPECT will be available for the competency evaluation of RDNs practicing in clinical settings.

Indexed as

competencycontent validityDelphi consensusface validitynutrition-focused physical examregistered dietitian nutritionists

Identifiers

PMID34574998
PMCPMC8472113
OpenAlexW3200354786

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.