Hi. Thank you for the video. Is it possible to calculate the content validity index using a content validation form in which experts have to assess items from 1 - Not relevant to 7 - highly relevant instead in a scale from 1 to 4 ? And if yes, how can I calculate it in that case?
Hello sir. Salamat po sa tutorial na ito ay nakatulong sa akin talaga. Question lang po kung saan niyo po kinuha yung interpretation para sa universal agreement na 0.75 bakit po 6 ang valid po. Thanks
I-CVI is computed as the number of experts giving a rating of “very relevant” for each item divided by the total number of experts. Values range from 0 to 1 where I-CVI > 0.79, the item is relevant, between 0.70 and 0.79, the item needs revisions, and if the value is below 0.70 the item is eliminated. Ref.: Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi- H. Design and implementation content validity Study : development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. J Caring Sci. 2015;4(5):165-78.
Thank you for your explanation Sir, ) Finally , universal agreement 0.75 is acceptable as per your statement. now should we have to delete item 3 whose ICVI is 0.6.
Evaluation through expert judgement consists of asking a number of individuals to make a judgement on an instrument or to express their opinion on a particular aspect (Cabero, 2013). Determining the number of experts that should be involved in the content validation is one of the main difficulties to be addressed, as there is no widespread consensus on this (Garrote, 2015). Availability and level of knowledge on the subject matter of the research are some of the criteria used to establish the sufficient number of experts. However, the appropriate number of experts will depend on the method used. Some methods are designed to measure agreement between two judges (Pedrosa, 2013). Other methods require a higher number of experts, between 7 and 30 (Varela-Ruiz, 2012). Thus, the best practice is to have at least 5 experts (Musa, 2013) and 2 of which should be experts in measurement (Escobar-Perez, 2008). Hence, I would say in the negative to your question. You could always find 2 measurement experts in your locality.
Sir, I have a question again. I hope you could still respond. How if the validity test of questionnaire needs 3 criteria to measure (i.e. Relevance, Representativeness and clatity)?
@@acceptthenmove6380 The relevance of an assessment tool refers to the appropriateness of its elements for the targeted constructs and functions of assessment, while the representativeness of an assessment tool refers to the degree to which its elements proportional to the facets of the targeted construct (Haynes, et. al. 1995). Despite the two aspects of content validity (i.e., relevant and representativeness of an assessment tool), the relevant of an assessment tool that was advocated by Davis (2006) has been frequently used to measure the content validity (Polit, 2006). It is important to note that establishing the content validity is vital to support the validity of an assessment tool such as questionnaires, especially for research purpose (Yusof, 2019). The content validity of the instrument with respect to the three parameters was then determined as a proportion of items which had a CVI of 0.75 to 1.00. For the instrument to be content valid, items should score 3 or 4 on a Likert scale of 4 [Drost, 2011]. In other words, you had to develop similar Likert type of content validity form for relevance, representativeness and clarity. To which this tutorial only exhibited, the aspect of relevance. Therefore the items that had a CVI of over 0.75 (for relevance, representativeness, clarity) would remain in the questionnaire. Example below. Item 1 is a valid item while item 2 was assessed below the required threshold for relevance, doubt and clarity, thus be be removed as an item while item 3 needs improvement on the aspect of relevance. Lynn (1986)advised that items with minimum agreement of experts may be eliminated or revised. Item Relevance Representativeness Clarity 1 0.80 1.00 1.00 2. 0.60 0.40 0.40 3. 0.60 0.80 0.80 I hope I made it clear. Thanks.
OMG this helps me a a lot while doing pre testing of my questionnaire. thank you so much and God Bless :)
Hope it helps.
Thank you for your explanation, it was very useful
You explained so explocitly that it was easy to understand
THANK YOU SIRR a very helpful tutorial
WHAT do you do with the responses to the communication of the items?
Hi. Thank you for the video. Is it possible to calculate the content validity index using a content validation form in which experts have to assess items from 1 - Not relevant to 7 - highly relevant instead in a scale from 1 to 4 ? And if yes, how can I calculate it in that case?
hello sir question what if i could delete item 3? not to improve but to disregard would be possible? esp if you have multiple variables?
Simplified. Thanks
Very helpful. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent explanation thank you
My Pleasure. I am humbled.
Hello sir. Salamat po sa tutorial na ito ay nakatulong sa akin talaga. Question lang po kung saan niyo po kinuha yung interpretation para sa universal agreement na 0.75 bakit po 6 ang valid po. Thanks
I-CVI is computed as the number of experts giving a rating of “very relevant” for each item divided by the total number of experts. Values range from 0 to 1 where I-CVI > 0.79, the item is relevant, between 0.70 and 0.79, the item needs revisions, and if the value is below 0.70 the item is eliminated.
Ref.: Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi- H. Design and implementation content validity Study : development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. J Caring Sci. 2015;4(5):165-78.
Thank you for your explanation Sir, ) Finally , universal agreement 0.75 is acceptable as per your statement. now should we have to delete item 3 whose ICVI is 0.6.
You may revise it and submit for interrater re-evaluation. Thanks.
Sir do you have a research paper about this that I can cite
Thank u . Very nice ppt
Thank You!
dear Ismael Musa. Thanks.
My pleasure.
pwede po bang magtanong po sir kung pwede po makahingi po ng link po para sa excel sa pag ano po niyo sa CVR po? thank you po
What if you only have one validator? Is it possible?
Evaluation through expert judgement consists of asking a number of individuals to make a judgement on an instrument or to express their opinion on a particular aspect (Cabero, 2013). Determining the number of experts that should be involved in the content validation is one of the main difficulties to be addressed, as there is no widespread consensus on this (Garrote, 2015). Availability and level of knowledge on the subject matter of the research are some of the criteria used to establish the sufficient number of experts. However, the appropriate number of experts will depend on the method used. Some methods are designed to measure agreement between two judges (Pedrosa, 2013). Other methods require a higher number of experts, between 7 and 30 (Varela-Ruiz, 2012). Thus, the best practice is to have at least 5 experts (Musa, 2013) and 2 of which should be experts in measurement (Escobar-Perez, 2008). Hence, I would say in the negative to your question. You could always find 2 measurement experts in your locality.
Sir, I have a question again. I hope you could still respond. How if the validity test of questionnaire needs 3 criteria to measure (i.e. Relevance, Representativeness and clatity)?
And if each criteria must be calculated... How will they relate to one another after?
@@acceptthenmove6380 The relevance of an assessment tool refers to the appropriateness of its elements for the targeted constructs and functions of assessment, while the representativeness of an assessment tool refers to the degree to which its elements proportional to the facets of the targeted construct (Haynes, et. al. 1995). Despite the two aspects of content validity (i.e., relevant and representativeness of an assessment tool), the relevant of an assessment tool that was advocated by Davis (2006) has been frequently used to measure the content validity (Polit, 2006). It is important to note that establishing the content validity is vital to support the validity of an assessment tool such as questionnaires, especially for research purpose (Yusof, 2019).
The content validity of the instrument with respect to the three parameters was then determined as a proportion of items which had a CVI of 0.75 to 1.00. For the instrument to be content valid, items should score 3 or 4 on a Likert scale of 4 [Drost, 2011]. In other words, you had to develop similar Likert type of content validity form for relevance, representativeness and clarity. To which this tutorial only exhibited, the aspect of relevance. Therefore the items that had a CVI of over 0.75 (for relevance, representativeness, clarity) would remain in the questionnaire.
Example below. Item 1 is a valid item while item 2 was assessed below the required threshold for relevance, doubt and clarity, thus be be removed as an item while item 3 needs improvement on the aspect of relevance. Lynn (1986)advised that items with minimum agreement of experts may be eliminated or revised.
Item Relevance Representativeness Clarity
1 0.80 1.00 1.00
2. 0.60 0.40 0.40
3. 0.60 0.80 0.80
I hope I made it clear. Thanks.
Sana ng Tagalog ka nlng po
May I have your email pls, I have a question about the CVI