ArticleBMC medical education2025
Development and content validation of an instrument to assess the prevalence of psychiatric medication use among dental students at Brazilian universities.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a measurement instrument aimed at assessing the prevalence of psychiatric medication use among final-year dental students enrolled in Brazilian universities. Methods: The process emphasized both the construction of the questionnaire and the collection of evidence for its content validity. A mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The initial stages involved defining the main research problem, establishing the instrument’s objectives, determining its conceptual domains, identifying the target population, and constructing the items, scoring system, and response scales. Based on a comprehensive literature review, a preliminary questionnaire consisting of 23 open- and closed-ended items was created. This version was submitted to a panel of eight expert judges—academics and/or researchers specializing in Psychology, Psychiatry, Pedagogy, and Dentistry/Instrument Development—tasked with evaluating each item’s clarity. Results: Content analysis was conducted using consensus thresholds. Quantitatively, the agreement rate among judges was calculated as the proportion of experts endorsing each item. Items with less than 90% agreement were revised; items with 90% or greater agreement were considered acceptable. In the first round of evaluation, 14 items were rejected. After modification based on judge feedback, all items were approved in the second round. The high level of agreement among experts was deemed sufficient to provide evidence of content validity. Following expert validation, a pre-test was conducted with dental students’ representative of the target population. Based on both qualitative and quantitative feedback, two questions were adjusted, leading to the development of the final version of the instrument. Conclusions: These initial findings and methodological steps form the foundation for the instrument’s definitive application in future research assessing psychiatric medication use among undergraduate dental students.
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.