Sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in determining the incomprehensible items by older people: Empirical evidence of testing 106 quality-of-life items.

Objective: This methodological research aimed to investigate and compare the sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in identifying incomprehensible items empirically. Methods: A purposive sample of 15 older people living in three residential care homes (RCHs) in Hong Kong was used to evaluate a newly developed 106 items covering seven quality-of-life dimensions. The abbreviated Mental Test (Hong Kong version; AMT) was used as a screening tool for excluding those with impaired cognition. The interview was audiotaped, and incomprehensible items were identified by the research panel accordingly (served as the gold standard). The socio-demographics of the respondents were described. Understandability (yes/no, conventional face validation method) and interpretability (4-point Likert scale, new method) were compared and used to compute the Results: Fifteen older people were interviewed and responded to the structured interview of 106 items regarding understandability and interpretability. 61 items (57%) obtained 100% positive understandability while only 35 items (33%) obtained 100% correct interpretability.The Conclusion: This empirical evidence indicated that the conventional approach of face validation for checking incomprehensible items by older people encountered a high false negative rate. On the contrary, the new approach was recommended because it demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity and low false positive and negative rates in identifying incomprehensible items.