ArticlePloS one2023
Family vulnerability scale: Evidence of content and internal structure validity.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Overview of Instruments to Assess Vulnerability in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Family Vulnerability Scale: validity evidence in primary health care.Revista de saude publica · 2024Article
- Development and content validation of a risk classification instrument.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTerritory view based on families' vulnerability strata allows identifying different health needs that can guide healthcare at primary care scope. Despite the availability of tools designed to measure family vulnerability, there is still a need for substantial validity evidence, which limits the use of these tools in a country showing multiple socioeconomic and cultural realities, such as Brazil. The primary objective of this study is to develop and gather evidence on the validity of the Family Vulnerability Scale for Brazil, commonly referred to as EVFAM-BR (in Portuguese).
methodsItems were generated through exploratory qualitative study carried out by 123 health care professionals. The data collected supported the creation of 92 initial items, which were then evaluated by a panel of multi-regional and multi-disciplinary experts (n = 73) to calculate the Content Validity Ratio (CVR). This evaluation process resulted in a refined version of the scale, consisting of 38 items. Next, the scale was applied to 1,255 individuals to test the internal-structure validity by using the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Dimensionality was evaluated using Robust Parallel Analysis, and the model underwent cross-validation to determine the final version of EVFAM-BR.
resultsThis final version consists of 14 items that are categorized into four dimensions, accounting for an explained variance of 79.02%. All indicators were within adequate and satisfactory limits, without any cross-loading or Heywood Case issues. Reliability indices also reached adequate levels (α = 0.71; ω = 0.70; glb = 0.83 and ORION ranging from 0.80 to 0.93, between domains). The instrument scores underwent a normalization process, revealing three distinct vulnerability strata: low (0 to 4), moderate (5 to 6), and high (7 to 14).
conclusionThe scale exhibited satisfactory validity evidence, demonstrating consistency, reliability, and robustness. It resulted in a concise instrument that effectively measures and distinguishes levels of family vulnerability within the primary care setting in Brazil.
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.