Test for clinical reasoning evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology: content validity

• Published in: CoDAS (São Paulo) Vol. 36; no. 4; p. e20230276
• Main Authors: Gama, Ana Cristina Côrtes, Mourão, Aline Mansueto, Medeiros, Adriane Mesquita, Mancini, Patrícia Cotta, Machado, Thais Helena, Santos, Lara Gama, Gomes, Nayara Ribeiro
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Portuguese
• Published: 01.01.2024
• ISSN: 2317-1782; 2317-1782
• DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt

To validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS.PURPOSETo validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS.This is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised.METHODSThis is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised.Thirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master's degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges.RESULTSThirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master's degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges.FonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.CONCLUSIONFonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.