The Evaluation of Content Relevance and Representativeness of the New Stroke Risk Screening Scales

Suebsarn Ruksakulpiwat, Joachim G. Voss, Abhilash K Challa and Aaron Kudlowitz

Clinical Nursing Research, 2024, vol. 33, issue 8, 591-602

Abstract: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Early and comprehensive risk identification is essential for identifying individuals at high risk for stroke. This study aimed to evaluate each question in the new Stroke Risk Screening Scales (SRSS) and assess the domains for content relevance and representativeness. Initially, six stroke experts were invited to evaluate the SRSS questions. The content validity index (CVI), including the item-CVI (I-CVI) and the average-CVI (Ave-CVI), was then calculated. In our study, the acceptable standards for I-CVI and Ave-CVI were ≥0.78 and ≥0.9, respectively. The results showed that all invited experts accepted the invitation and evaluated the SRSS questions. The previous version of the SRSS consisted of 33 questions. Of these, 30 questions reached an I-CVI of ≥0.78, indicating good content validity. Three questions had an I-CVI of 0.67 and were considered invalid; thus, they were deleted. The overall instrument achieved an Ave-CVI of 0.95. Comprehensive SRSS are essential for effective stroke prevention planning. By facilitating the early identification of individuals at high risk for stroke, these scales help reduce the incidence and impact of stroke. The high content validity found in this study supports the reliability of the SRSS as a screening tool. In the future, implementing such validated scales in clinical practice can improve early intervention strategies, ultimately enhancing health outcomes and optimizing the use of healthcare resources.

Keywords: content validity; scale development; screening scale; stroke (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10547738241273864 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:clnure:v:33:y:2024:i:8:p:591-602

DOI: 10.1177/10547738241273864

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Clinical Nursing Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().