ArticleBMC research notes2025
Assessing content validity of the Osteo-TAQ(Aus) using cognitive interviews: cross-jurisdictional evidence from UK osteopathic practice.
Article in BMC research notes, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Osteopaths' Therapeutic Approaches Questionnaire (Osteo-TAQ) has demonstrated content, construct, and face validity across multiple jurisdictions but required cognitive validation for use in the United Kingdom (UK).
objectivesTo assess the cognitive content and face validity of the Australian-adapted Osteo-TAQ (Osteo-TAQ(Aus)) with practising UK osteopaths, and to determine whether any revisions were necessary.
methodsCognitive interviews were conducted with six (n = 6) UK osteopaths using a combination of think-aloud and verbal probing techniques, informed by the Cognitive Interview Reporting Framework (CIRF). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using team-based content analysis to identify issues of item interpretation, clarity and relevance to UK practice.
resultsStrong alignment with UK practice was demonstrated across all 36 items. No items required modification, providing positive validation evidence for cross-jurisdictional stability. Participants reported that the Osteo-TAQ(Aus) items were relevant, understandable and reflective of their day-to-day clinical practice.
conclusionThis study provides the first evidence of cross-jurisdictional cognitive stability for the Osteo-TAQ(Aus), demonstrating robust content validity in its country of origin and suitability for use in a UK setting. These findings support its continued use in UK-based research and professional development initiatives aimed at exploring therapeutic approaches and conceptions of practice.
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.