Evaluating the content validity of two versions of an instrument used in measuring pediatric pain knowledge and attitudes in the Ghanaian context

• Published in: PloS one 2020-11, Vol.15 (11), p.e0241983-e0241983
• Main Authors: Kusi Amponsah, Abigail, Bam, Victoria, Stolt, Minna, Korhonen, Joonas, Axelin, Anna
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Analgesics; Attitudes; Biology and Life Sciences; Care and treatment; Child; Children & youth; Clarity; Context; Diagnosis; Evaluation; Female; Ghana; Health care; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health sciences; Humans; Knowledge; Male; Measuring instruments; Medicine; Medicine and Health Sciences; Middle Aged; Nurses; Pain; Pain - physiopathology; Pain - psychology; Pain management; Pain Measurement - psychology; Patients; Pediatric diseases; Pediatric nursing; Pediatrics; People and Places; Polls & surveys; Population; Reproducibility of Results; Semantics; Social Sciences; Surveys and Questionnaires; Teenagers; Test reliability; Validity
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241983

In this article, we compared the content validity of two instruments used in measuring pediatric pain knowledge and attitudes. This was considered necessary due to the universal differences in culture, semantics and healthcare resources in different parts of the globe. Thirteen (13) pediatric experts in Ghana assessed the content validity of two instruments: the 42-item Pediatric Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain (PNKAS) and the 41-item Pediatric Healthcare Providers' Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain (PHPKASRP). The relevance and clarity of each item on these instruments were rated on a four-point likert scaled options from 1 (not relevant/ not clear) to 4 (very relevant/ very clear). The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) was calculated by dividing the number of experts who rated an item with 3 or 4 by the total number of experts. The average scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) was also estimated by summing up the I-CVIs of all items and dividing them by the total number of items. The I-CVIs on the PNKAS ranged from 0.62 to 1.00 for the relevance component and 0.69 to 1.00 for the clarity component. The I-CVIs on the PHPKASRP ranged from 0.62 to 1.00 for both the relevance and clarity components. The S-CVI/Ave were 0.87 and 0.89 for the relevance and clarity aspects on the PNKAS respectively. The S-CVI/Ave for the PHPKASRP instrument were 0.86 and 0.89 for the relevance and clarity aspects correspondingly. At the end of the validation process, 5 items were revised on both instruments whilst 37 and 36 items were maintained on the PNKAS and PHPKASRP instruments respectively. The PNKAS and PHPKASRP have an acceptable level of content validity in the Ghanaian context and recommended for educational and research purposes. Other forms of validity and reliability of these instruments should also be examined in future studies.