ArticleCoDAS2024
Test for clinical reasoning evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology: content validity.
Article in CoDAS, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS.
methodsThis is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised.
resultsThirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master's degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges.
conclusionFonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.
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.