ArticleBMC health services research2026
Development of the malay version of the patient satisfaction questionnaire for virtual consultation services (MPSQ-VC): content validity & face validity analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMalaysia's rapid adoption of virtual primary care has raised the need to assess patient satisfaction across multiple dimensions. Current assessment tools do not comprehensively integrate digital usability, service logistics and screen-mediated clinician-patient consultations, particularly in the context of Malaysian culture. This research aims to develop and validate items for a Malay-language questionnaire that assesses patient satisfaction with virtual consultation services in primary healthcare.
methodsItems were initially created based on a framework derived from a systematic literature review and refined through input from three expert panels. To assess the validity of the MPSQ-VC, nine experts in the relevant field and ten experienced patients participated. The content validity index (CVI), content validity ratio (CVR), and face validity index (FVI) were evaluated using Microsoft Excel.
resultThe prototype consisted of 52 items that were aligned with the adapted and modified SERVQUAL-TAM's five domains. Iterative edits and expert feedback resulted in a 39-item instrument, comprising Perceived Usefulness (7 items), Reliability (7 items), Responsiveness (8 items), Assurance (9 items), and Empathy (8 items). Content appraisal by the nine-member expert panel retained 30 items, eliminating 13 with relevance I-CVI < 0.78 and refining nine borderline statements. The scale achieved excellent S-CVI/Ave (0.93) and S-CVR (0.85). Face validity testing of the 39-item MPSQ-VC v2.0 was conducted with 10 adult respondents, who were diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, and education. Item- and Scale-level Face Validity Indices were analysed across domains, and nine sub-threshold and six borderline items were identified. Based on respondent feedback, we revised nine items and removed nine with low I-FVI or comprehension concerns, achieving an S-FVI/Ave greater than 0.80 in all domains, thereby finalizing a 30-item MPSQ-VC v3.0. DISCUSSION: The scale bridges gaps in the original SERVQUAL's model by replacing 'Tangibility' with 'Perceived-Usefulness' and integrating relevant items into other domains, offering culturally grounded insight for Malaysian virtual care. This questionnaire provides practitioners and policymakers with a reliable yardstick for benchmarking patient satisfaction, guiding targeted improvements and strengthening evidence-based policy. However, psychometric and reliability testing with larger patient samples is necessary to confirm construct validity and response over time.
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.