ArticleCoDAS2026
Reduced version of the MBGR protocol: validity based on content and the response processes.
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.
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
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
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.