Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42561303›Full record

ArticleCoDAS2026

Reduced version of the MBGR protocol: validity based on content and the response processes.

Asenate Soares de Matos Pereira, Herick Santos Assis, Paola Pereira Leite, Katia Flores Genaro, Giédre Berretin-Felix

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in CoDAS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Asenate Soares de Matos PereiraDepartamento de Fonoaudiologia, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru - FOB, Universidade de São Paulo - USP - Bauru (SP), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3101-4224
Herick Santos AssisDepartamento de Fonoaudiologia, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru - FOB, Universidade de São Paulo - USP - Bauru (SP), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6122-6463
Paola Pereira LeiteDepartamento de Fonoaudiologia, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru - FOB, Universidade de São Paulo - USP - Bauru (SP), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5047-8920
Katia Flores GenaroDepartamento de Fonoaudiologia, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru - FOB, Universidade de São Paulo - USP - Bauru (SP), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5218-760X
Giédre Berretin-FelixDepartamento de Fonoaudiologia, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru - FOB, Universidade de São Paulo - USP - Bauru (SP), Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8614-2805

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeConsidering the clinical need for greater assessment efficiency, this study aimed to present the short version of the MBGR Protocol, addressing the stages of content-based validity evidence and response process validation.

methodsA preliminary version of the reduced MBGR Protocol was developed based on the original version and subjected to the Delphi methodology. Content validation was conducted in two rounds, using a Likert scale to assess the relevance and representativeness of the items. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was calculated. For the response process validation, 11 speech- language pathologists (SLPs) were trained, and the protocol was applied to 11 patients, with video recording. Subsequently, the professionals completed a questionnaire, and the responses were analyzed and discussed with an expert committee. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the reduced and original versions, using paired t-tests or the Wilcoxon test, with a significance level set at p<0.05.

resultsThe initial proposal of the reduced protocol included 36 items. Of the 11 invited experts, seven analyzed and provided feedback on each item, leading to the exclusion of 17 items. The content validity evidence yielded a global CVI of 87%. During the response process evaluation, the SLPs reported adequate understanding and applicability of the short version. Most professionals considered the original protocol too extensive and the reduced version more feasible for clinical practice. The suggestions were mostly incorporated by the authors, resulting in adjustments and exclusions that finalized the reduced protocol, with a total score ranging from 0 to 137 points.

conclusionThe reduced version of the MBGR Protocol demonstrated evidence of content validity and response process validation, resulting in a final version with a shorter application time, making it more suitable for clinical use.

Indexed as

Speech-Language PathologyDelphi TechniqueHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42561303
PMCPMC13440979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.