ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Evaluation of face validity and core concepts of a novel knowledge scale for inherited heart disease: A pilot study.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. 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.
- Preliminary Validation of a Novel Genetic Knowledge Scale for Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Evaluation of Face Validity and Core Concepts.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Evaluation of face validity and core concepts of a novel knowledge scale for inherited heart disease: A pilot study.Journal of genetic counseling · 2025Article
- The development and face validity of the music therapy sensory instrument for cognition, consciousness, and awareness (MuSICCA).Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rising demand for genetic counseling has prompted the implementation of various innovative service delivery models, such as patient webinars, videos, chatbots, and the integration of genetic testing into mainstream healthcare. To ensure patients receive adequate information for informed decision-making, validated measures to assess these models are essential but currently limited in the setting of inherited heart disease. We aimed to develop and initiate validation of a cardiac knowledge scale, as part of the Multidimensional Model of Informed Choice measure, to assess whether patients (probands and family members) with inherited cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, and aortopathies are provided with sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions about genetic testing. Content expert genetic counselors identified eight core concepts addressed during genetic counseling sessions; from these, eight true/false knowledge questions were created. Questions were reviewed by 22 international cardiac genetics counselors with additional changes made. Initial validation steps of the knowledge scale were conducted at two sites: the Edmonton Medical Genetic Clinic, University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, Canada, and the Genetic Heart Disease Clinic, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, Australia. Face validity was evaluated through nine patient interviews, resulting in minor revisions to four questions and major revisions to one question. An additional five patient interviews were conducted to evaluate the revised questions. The core concepts addressed in each question were further evaluated in the context of patient decision-making about genetic testing. All participants described the eight concepts as either helpful or essential in their decision-making process. The cardiac knowledge scale is a promising measure created to evaluate the informed choice of patients and their families affected by an inherited heart condition. The next step of validation includes trialing the cardiac knowledge scale with a real-world sample of patients deciding about genetic testing for inherited heart disease.
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.