ArticleCoDAS2022
Development and validation of children's stories as a health education strategy in speech, language, and hearing sciences.
Article in CoDAS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDeveloping and validating children's stories focused on health education in Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences.
methodsCross-sectional, descriptive, quali-quantitative two-step study. 1st) elaboration of 10 children's stories, guiding questions, explanatory notes, and illustrations. 2nd) validation by judges (speech therapists, educators, and familiar) in two phases. In the first, the sample consisted of 42 judges and in the second, 28. To access the materials and the validation questionnaire, a website was made available. The questionnaire investigated the judges' personal data and the judges' perceptions regarding the contents, vocabulary, illustrations, structure, and motivation of the materials. A five-point Likert scale of the agreement was used, with spaces for suggestions in each question. The quantitative analysis was done using the Content Validity Index and the Content Validity Coefficient. The qualitative analysis was based on the comments of the judges. The minimum rate of agreement among the judges on the decision to change or not change the materials was 80%.
resultsThe first phase pointed out the need for modifications in three titles and two vocabularies (bullying and dyke), and the need for increasing to five years of age the minimum age for access to the materials. The second phase revealed good acceptability in all changes made.
conclusionThe materials developed were validated and can be used as health education tools by speech therapists and educators, as well as parents.
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.