Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36340938›Full record

ArticleThe South African journal of physiotherapy2022

Validation of content and structure of the Return-to-work assessment for post-stroke survivors.

Peter O Ibikunle, Anthea Rhoda, Mario R Smith, Ushotanefe Useh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The South African journal of physiotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Peter O IbikunleDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3306-2921
Anthea RhodaDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5995-0321
Mario R SmithDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0281-8290
Ushotanefe UsehDepartment of Lifestyle Diseases, Faculty of Health, North-West University, Mafikeng, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5075-7138

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Validation of an instrument consist of three main types: content, criterion and construct. Content validity needs to be determined in order for an instrument to be acceptable for use, validity establishes the fact that an instrument measures exactly what it proposes to measure. The Return-to-work assessment scale (RAS) was developed to measure three aspects of return to work: (Personal factors and/or issues, work issues and contextual factors) in 2021. Objective: To report on the processes followed in establishing the face and content validity of the RAS. Method: Twenty participants took part in our study, they were selected purposively and conveniently from a pool of professionals and post stroke survivors. The Delphi survey technique was used to arrive at consensus and professional opinion on the items included in the RAS. Consensus was sought on the items, domains and subdomains included in the RAS that was used to assess return-to-work after a stroke. Our study was concluded after the third round. Result: One item was remove out of the original 86, three (3) domains made up of eleven (11) subdomains were retained. The RAS had consensus of 100% after three rounds of scrutiny for all items. Conclusion: The RAS was found to be valid, thereby establishing its face and content validity. Clinical implication: The RAS is valid and was recommended for psychometric testing which was the next stage after face and content validity.

Indexed as

disabilityrehabilitationscalevalidationWHO

Identifiers

PMID36340938
PMCPMC9634941

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.