Yusoff et al. (Content Validity)

Question 1

Five sources of validity evidence

Answer 1

Content, Response process, Internal structure, Relation to other variables, and Consequence.

Question 2

Content validity

Answer 2

Degree to which elements of an assessment tool are relevant and representative of the targeted construct.

Question 3

Assessment instrument

Answer 3

Method of acquiring data (e.g., questionnaires)

Question 4

Elements

Answer 4

Aspects like items, response formats, and instructions.

Question 5

Assessment purpose

Answer 5

The function of the tool (e.g., MSSQ measures stress in medical students, AEEMI measures anatomy education environments)

Question 6

Relevance of assessment tool

Answer 6

Appropriateness of the tool for the construct.

Question 7

Representativeness of assessment tool

Answer 7

Proportionality of elements to facets of the construct.

Question 8

Content Validity Index (CVI)

Answer 8

Used to quantify content validity.

Question 9

Aim of the paper

Answer 9

Describe the best practices for quantifying content validity using Content Validity Index (CVI).

Question 10

Six steps involved in content validation (6)

Answer 10

1. Preparing content validation form
2. Selecting a review panel of experts
3. Conducting content validation
4. Reviewing domain and items
5. Providing score on each item
6. Calculating CVI

Question 11

Step 1 & Guidelines

Answer 11

Preparing Content Validation Form
Ensure clarity in the form for expert review. Clear expectation and understanding about the task.
-> Provide instructions and a rating scale (e.g., relevance scale).
-> Definitions of domains must be clear to aid experts in scoring.

Question 12

Step 2 & Guidelines

Answer 12

Selecting a Review Panel of Experts. Experts are selected based on their expertise in the topic.

Question 13

What’s the MINIMUM RECOMMENDED NUMBER OF EXPERTS

Answer 13

6 to 10
-> At least 6 experts are considered ideal for robust content validation.
-> 2 experts = minimum acceptable

Question 14

Step 3 & Guidelines

Answer 14

Conducting Content Validation. Face-to-faceornon-face-to-face.

Question 15

Step 3: Conducting Content Validation
Pros & Cons of Face-to-face approach

Answer 15

Pros: Higher response rate.
Cons: Costly, time-consuming, hard to organize.

Question 16

Step 3: Conducting Content Validation
Pros & Cons of Non-Face-to-face approach

Answer 16

Pros: Cost-effective.
Cons: Risk of low response rate and delayed responses.
=> Non-face-to-face approach is very efficient with systematic follow-up (to improve response rate/time)!

Question 17

Step 4 & Guidelines

Answer 17

Reviewing Domain and Items.
Experts are provided with domain definitions and item descriptions + critically review and provide comments to improve item relevance (BEFORE PROVIDING SCORES)
=> Feedback is incorporated into refining items and domains.

Question 18

Step 5 & Guidelines

Answer 18

Providing Score on Each Item.
After reviewing, experts score items based on relevance. Experts submit their responses after completing all scores independently.