Development and content validity of a rating scale for the pain and disability drivers management model

Abstract

Background Establishing the biopsychosocial profile of patients with low back pain (LBP) is essential to personalized care. The Pain and Disability Drivers Management model (PDDM) has been suggested as a useful framework to help clinicians establish this biopsychosocial profile. Yet, there is no tool to facilitate its integration into clinical practice. Thus, the aim of this study is to develop a rating scale and validate its content, to rapidly establish the patient’s biopsychosocial profile, based on the five domains of the PDDM. Methods The tool was developed in accordance with the principles of the COSMIN methodology. We conducted three steps: 1) item generation from a comprehensive review, 2) refinement of the scale with clinicians’ feedback, and 3) statistical analyses to assess content validity. To validate the item assessing with Likert scales, we performed Item level-Content Validity Index (I-CVI) analyses on three criteria (clarity, presentation and clinical applicability) with an a priori threshold of > 0.78. We conducted Average-Content Validity Index (Ave-CVI) analyses to validate the overall scale with a threshold of > 0.9. Results In accordance with the PDDM, we developed a 5-item rating scale (1 per domain) with 4 score options. We selected clinical instruments to screen for the presence or absence of problematic issues within each category of the 5 domains. Forty-two participants provided feedback to refine the scale’s clarity, presentation, and clinical applicability. The statistical analysis of the latest version presented I-CVI above the threshold for each item (I-CVI ranged between 0.94 and 1). Analysis of the overall scale supported its validation (Ave-CVI = 0.96 [0.93;0.98]). Conclusion From the 51 biopsychosocial elements contained within the 5 domains of the PDDM, we developed a rating scale that allows to rapidly screen for problematic issues within each category of the PDDM’s 5 domains. Involving clinicians in the process allowed us to validate the content of the first scale to establish the patient’s biopsychosocial profile for people with low back pain. Future steps will be necessary to continue the psychometric properties analysis of this rating scale.

Validation of a Scale on Society’s Attitudes towards the Sexuality of Women with Intellectual Disabilities—Survey Study

“…The Content Validity Index results agreed with other authors, who recommended that a scale reviewed by six to eight experts should have a minimum result of 0.83 for each item [ 46 ]. Other authors stated 0.78 as a minimum [ 37 , 47 ]. As a result, the items under 0.78 were discarded.…”

“…The professionals made the necessary modifications to continue with the validity verification of each item using the Content Validity Index formula. This process consisted of adding the items’ points greater than or equal to 3 and dividing this by the total number of experts [ 37 ]. The questionnaire was disseminated through the use of Whatsapp and Instagram platforms.…”

Optimising management of low back pain through the pain and disability drivers management model: Findings from a pilot cluster nonrandomised controlled trial

“…Thus, it is an integral part embedded in the PDDM model and is essential for its use in clinical practice. It has shown acceptable inter‐rater reliability (Naye et al., 2021) and inherent face validity (Naye et al., 2022).…”

Content Validity of the Left Ventricular Assist Device Bathing Assessment

“…Items with an I-CVI score of .78 or higher were rated excellent according to Polit et al (2007). While an I-CVI cut-off score of .80 has historically been used to determine item relevance, the cutoff from Polit et al (2007) has also been used in health care content validity studies and was selected for methodological consistency (Naye et al, 2022; Rodrigues et al, 2017; Zamanzadeh et al, 2015). Those with scores lower than .78 were revised based on expert feedback or removed from the assessment.…”