ArticleInternational journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP
Content Validity through Expert Judgment for the Depression Clinical Evaluation Test.
Article in International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP. 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.
- Expert judgement of collaborative cloud classroom quality and its criteria using the many-facets rasch model.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Network and Exploratory Factorial Analysis of the Depression Clinical Evaluation Test.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Objective: The evaluation of depression requires valid and reliable measuring instruments, which collect a wide spectrum of symptoms that this disorder displays, in order to carry out an accurate and differential diagnosis. The objective of this work is the construction of the Depression Clinical Evaluation Test (DCET), where affective, somatic, cognitive, behavioral and interpersonal symptoms are considered and also analyze its content validity through an expert judgment. Method: Based on different diagnostic and manual classifications, a specification table for a depression test was established. In its evaluation, 16 experts in Psychological Assessment, Psychometry and/or Psychopathology participated. A total of 300 items were created. The experts had to assess the items according to the criteria of Content, Relevance, Clarity, Comprehension, Sensitivity, and Offensiveness. In addition, 50 adults, evaluated the compression of the items. Results: The degree of understanding for all the items was high and the expert judgment favoured the suppression of 104 items, thus obtaining a shorter measuring instrument with a total of 196 items for ease of application. Conclusions: The content validity of the test is adequate and fits the agreed definition of depression.
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.