ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Content Validation of a Professionalism in Public Health Scale (PPHS) for Pakistani Public Health Professionals: An Expert Panel Study.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the content validity of the Professionalism in Public Health Scale (PPHS), developed for Pakistani public health professionals, through a structured expert-panel review. Methodology: A cross-sectional expert-panel study was conducted from Sept 2025 - Dec 2025 at the National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi. Ten experts with experience in public health practice, education, and research independently reviewed an initial pool of 45 items generated through theoretical synthesis and structured literature review. Each item was rated for relevance (4-point scale), necessity (3-point scale), and clarity (4-point scale), with space for narrative suggestions. Quantitative content validity indices were calculated (item-level CVI and scale-level CVI/Ave), along with Content Validity Ratio (CVR) to assess item essentiality. Written qualitative feedback was analysed in parallel and used to guide item refinement and removal decisions. Results: PPHS demonstrated strong scale-level content validity (S-CVI/Ave = 0.88), with consistently high domain-level indices (S-CVI/Ave = 0.83-0.91). Based on combined quantitative thresholds and narrative feedback, nine items were removed and several were revised for clarity and construct alignment, yielding a final 36-item scale (80% retention). Key expert suggestions centered on improving wording and specificity, addressing response-scale suitability, and correcting double-barreled statements. Conclusion: This expert review provides evidence of excellent content validity for the 36-item PPHS and supports progressing to field testing and further psychometric evaluation in Pakistani public health settings.
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.