ArticleCoDAS2023
Reliability of a script agreement test for undergraduate speech-language therapy students.
Article in CoDAS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate the reliability of scripts designed for undergraduate Speech-Language Therapy students.
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out. Qualitative variables were summarized by frequency or proportion and quantitative through means (CI 95%). Reliability was estimated through Cronbach's α coefficient, and inter-rater agreement was determined using Fleiss's Kappa index. The analytical tests considered a significance level of p<0.05.
results80 scripts organized in four areas of speech-language therapy were validated by 41 speech-language pathologists. The average experience of the professionals was 17.1 years. The reliability of the corpus was α: 0.67 (min= 0.34; max: 0.84), and the inter-rater agreement κ: 0.29 (min: 0.07; max: 0.45).
conclusionThe corpus's reliability scores were similar to those reported by previous studies in different health professions. Having validated strategies aimed at developing proficiency and supporting classic training actions in undergraduate courses will contribute to increasing the quality of future health professionals.
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.