ArticleCurationis2023
Psychometric properties of a clinical assessment tool in the postgraduate midwifery programme, Botswana.
Article in Curationis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development, Urdu translation, and validation of a lifestyle modification manual for patients post-total knee replacement.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- Conceptualization of pain in Croatian adults: a cross-sectional and psychometric study.Croatian medical journal · 2024Article
- Enhancing educational technology practical course: Designing and validating tools for evaluating knowledge, performance, and satisfaction of public health students.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Observational
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
backgroundThe psychometric properties of a clinical assessment tool used in the postgraduate midwifery programme in Botswana have not been evaluated. A lack of reliable and valid clinical assessment tools contributes to inconsistencies in clinical assessment in midwifery programmes.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the internal consistency and content validity of a clinical assessment tool used in the postgraduate midwifery programme in Botswana.
methodFor internal consistency, we calculated the total-item correlation and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. For content validity, subject matter experts completed a checklist to evaluate the relevance and clarity of each competency in the clinical assessment tool. The checklist included questions with Likert-scale responses, indicating the level of agreement.
resultsThe clinical assessment tool had a good reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.837. The corrected item total correlation values ranged from -0.043 to 0.880 and the Cronbach's alpha (if item deleted) ranged from 0.079 to 0.865. Overall content validity ratio was 0.95, and content validity index was 0.97. Item content validity indices ranged from 0.8 to 1.0. The overall scale content validity index was 0.97 and the scale content validity index using universal agreement was 0.75.
conclusionThe clinical assessment tool used in the postgraduate midwifery programme in Botswana has acceptable reliability. Most of the competencies included in the clinical assessment tool were relevant and clear. Certain competencies need to be reviewed to improve the reliability and validity of the clinical assessment tool.Contribution: The clinical assessment tool currently used in the postgraduate midwifery programme in Botswana had acceptable internal consistency reliability and validity.
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.