ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2026
Exploring item comprehension and evaluation in the SELC scale: a qualitative pre-testing study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2026. 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
backgroundLifestyle counselling is part of healthcare professionals' work, but when focused on individual lifestyle counselling, its effects are often limited or context-dependent, highlighting the need for a person-centered approach where motivation, readiness for change, and relational aspects are key. The SELC scale measures self-efficacy, relevant to care professionals' engagement, but interpretation needs further study. The aim of this study was to explore how participants understood and evaluated items in the SELC scale and to identify potential issues related to clarity, relevance, and response options through qualitative pre-testing interviews.
methodsQualitative pre-testing interviews with eight strategically selected participants explored how SELC items were understood and evaluated, using a structured guide with probing, and were analyzed with deductive qualitative content analysis.
resultsParticipants found most items clear and easy to understand, although some terms were perceived as ambiguous. Items were generally perceived as relevant and consistently structured. Response alternatives were regarded as easy to distinguish, and the instructions were clear and straightforward. However, the open-ended item was unclear, and comments suggested that item order and the expert-driven perspective reduced the instrument's practical usefulness. In the revised SELC 20 + 20, terminology was clarified, items neutrally phrased, sequence aligned with real-life conversations, and visual and structural consistency improved.
conclusionsPre-testing interviews identified strengths and improvement areas in the SELC scale and guided its refinement. Combined with previously published psychometric testing, results suggest the SELC scale has potential for assessing self-efficacy among healthcare professionals and in educational settings, although further validation is needed.
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.