Vulnerability to physical inactivity: evidence of content validity and response processes.
Déborah Santana Pereira, Raquel Sampaio Florêncio, Virna Ribeiro Feitosa Cestari and 1 others
PMID 38558030WHAT IT FOUND
13 specialists and 46 adults helped refine 97 questions about vulnerability to physical inactivity.
The questions were made understandable, but this is early instrument development, not evidence that using them improves care.
Key findings
01After expert review, 101 items remained, with an overall agreement score of 0.92.
02During interviews with 46 adults, 35 items needed changes to be more understandable.
03The final item bank had 97 questions, 48 in the Subject Dimension and 49 in the Social Dimension.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study only tested content validity and understanding. It did not test whether the final 97 questions measure vulnerability accurately or improve patient care. The authors state this is the initial stage of instrument development and that further analyses are needed before safe use in population diagnosis. Only 13 specialists returned the content-validation ratings, and the response-process sample was 46 adults from one Brazilian city, so the results may not apply to other groups or settings. Many items needed wording or structure changes, especially for people with less education, and some were removed for lack of understanding or redundancy. The authors note a limitation of generalized analysis because of the high number of items and specific psychometric criteria.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 0.92 agreement score as proof that the item bank works in clinical care. It shows only that experts agreed the questions were relevant and adults could understand them. The authors state further analyses are needed before safe use.