ArticleCureus2026
Validity Evidence for the Better Research Interactions for Every Family (BRIEF) Assessment Tool.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Recruiting families for neonatal clinical trials is challenging due to narrow enrollment windows, high clinical acuity, and parental stress, which contributes to concerns regarding representativeness in neonatology research. The Better Research Interactions for Every Family (BRIEF) intervention was developed to improve recruitment experiences and equity. We aimed to gather validity evidence using Messick's framework for the BRIEF assessment tool, a component of the BRIEF educational intervention, designed to evaluate research team members' consent and recruitment interactions. Methods In this pilot prospective cohort study, physicians participating in the BRIEF educational intervention during a neonatal clinical trial completed recorded consent discussions (n = 22). Two blinded expert raters then evaluated sessions using the 10-item BRIEF assessment tool, a component of the BRIEF educational intervention. Participants completed self-assessments and surveys. Validity evidence for the BRIEF assessment tool was evaluated using weighted kappa for inter-rater agreement, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for associations with self-reported skill, and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency. Results Five physicians contributed 22 recorded encounters using the BRIEF assessment tool. Internal consistency was strong across items (α > 0.70). Inter-rater agreement ranged from poor to almost perfect, with half of the items demonstrating moderate or higher agreement. Agreement between self-assessment and expert ratings was poor. Only one performance objective (PO) correlated with self-reported skill. Lower expert-rated scores were associated with families declining trial participation. Most participants rated themselves higher than expert raters. Conclusions In this pilot study, the BRIEF assessment tool demonstrates preliminary validity as an observer-based measure of neonatal research consent interactions, with strong internal consistency and variable inter-rater reliability. Self-assessment utility appears limited. Further validation in larger, more diverse samples is needed before high-stakes 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.