ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2024
Validating the Antismoking AIDA Model-Based Questionnaire for Malaysian Population.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionThe aim of this study was to validate the AIDA (Attention, Interest, Desire, and Action) Model-Based Antismoking Campaign Questionnaire to be used in Malaysian population.
methodThis study consists of mainly translation, validation, and pilot testing. The translation phase using forward and backward translation, involved three panels and three translators. The validation was a cross-sectional study conducted from May to July 2023 with a purposive sampling technique. The data was collected through e-mails among eight experts. These experts answered an online questionnaire on a four-option Likert scale, based on the four concepts of relevancy, clarity, comprehensiveness, and representativeness. The content validity index (CVI) was measured on the scale of the content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) and Universal Agreement (UA). For pilot testing, the final version was tested among 25 non-smokers and six smokers to determine its reliability using the Cronbach's alpha.
resultsThe content validity study for relevancy, clarity, comprehension, and representative S-CVI/Ave is 0.85, 0.79, 0.79, and 0.84, respectively. The CVI score of above 0.83 indicates all items are relevant and representable. The pilot testing shows high internal consistency for both samples, more than 0.85.
conclusionIn summary, the adapted translated version's content validity index was satisfactory, and it can be further pilot tested among the other target population.
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.