Phonological Assessment Instrument: evidence of content validity and response processes

Bernardi, Ana Carolina Sartori; Botura, Camila; Alves, Giovana Sopezack; Ribas, Letícia Pacheco

doi:10.1590/2317-1782/20232022324en

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • CoDAS 36 (2) • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20232022324en copy

Phonological Assessment Instrument: evidence of content validity and response processes

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Purpose

to demonstrate the validity of content and the validity of response processes of an instrument intended for the phonological assessment of children.

Methods

validation was carried out in two stages by two different groups of judges, a group of specialists and a group of non-specialists. The first group, composed of three expert judges, evaluated the 123 lexical items after creating the instrument, judging the applicability of the figures in the context of child assessment, and suggesting adjustments to compose the content. From the observations, the instrument was adapted and directed to the group of non-specialist judges who, through the application of the instrument, had their responses evaluated according to the ease or difficulty of eliciting the instrument's items.

Results

The predictions obtained positive results for content validity and response processes.

Conclusion

the study allowed to improve the test items more judiciously, benefiting clinical and scientific use.

Keywords:
Validation Study; Reproducibility of Results; Speech; Child; Language Tests; Speech Sound Disorder; Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences

N	Correspondence
1	Item not suitable for a child speech assessment instrument
2	Item needs revision to be suitable for a child speech assessment instrument.
3	Item suitable for a child speech assessment instrument, although it needs minor changes.
4	Absolutely suitable item for a child speech assessment instrument.

N	Correspondence
0	Spontaneous nomination.
1	Needed tips and/or close method.
2	Required delayed imitation.
3	Required direct imitation.

Judges	CVI
A	1.0
B	0.98
C	0.96
Total	0.98
Judges’ polarization	0.95

Item	Response processes (%)				Item	Response processes (%)
Item	Spontaneous nomination	Needed tips and/or close method	Required delayed imitation	Needed direct imitation	Item	Spontaneous nomination	Needed tips and/or close method	Required delayed imitation	Needed direct imitation
1	62.5	23.3	13.6	0.6	63	87.5	10.8	1.7	0.0
2	98.9	1.1	0.0	0.0	64	88.1	9.7	2.3	0.0
3	94.9	2.3	2.3	0.6	65	92.0	4.5	2.8	0.6
4	98.3	1.1	0.0	0.6	66	94.3	3.4	2.3	0.0
5	53.4	43.2	2.8	0.6	67	87.5	11.4	1.1	0.0
6	77.8	10.8	11.4	0.0	68	84.7	13.1	2.3	0.0
7	94.3	2.3	3.4	0.0	69	98.9	0.6	0.6	0.0
8	59.7	25.6	13.6	1.1	70	96.6	1.1	1.1	1.1
9	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	71	97.7	1.7	0.0	0.0
10	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	72	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0
11	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	73	98.3	1.7	0.0	0.0
12	98.9	0.6	0.6	0.0	74	97.7	0.0	2.3	0.0
13	42.6	33.5	23.9	0.0	75	96.0	2.3	1.7	0.0
14	86.9	7.4	4.5	1.1	76	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
15	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	77	61.9	33.5	4.5	0.0
16	81.8	15.9	2.3	0.0	78	46.0	38.6	14.8	0.0
17	98.9	1.1	0.0	0.0	79	42.0	54.0	2.3	1.7
18	96.6	2.8	0.0	0.6	80	77.3	21.0	1.1	0.6
19	81.8	16.5	1.1	0.6	81	89.8	6.3	3.4	0.6
20	95.5	4.5	0.0	0.0	82	95.5	2.3	2.3	0.0
21	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	83	91.5	1.1	6.8	0.6
22	98.3	1.1	0.0	0.6	84	93.2	1.1	5.7	0.0
23	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	85	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0
24	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	86	64.8	17.6	17	0.6
25	86.4	13.1	0.6	0.0	87	43.2	25.6	29.5	1.7
26	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	88	98.9	0.0	1.1	0.0
27	99.4	0.6	0.0	0.0	89	77.8	17.6	2.8	1.7
28	91.5	6.3	2.3	0.0	90	98.3	1.7	0.0	0.0
29	98.9	1.1	0.0	0.0	91	95.5	2.8	1.7	0.0
30	89.8	9.7	0.6	0.0	92	90.9	6.8	2.3	0.0
31	91.5	6.8	1.1	0.6	93	42.0	56.3	0.6	1.1
32	97.2	2.8	0.0	0.0	94	91.5	2.8	5.7	0.0
33	98.3	1.1	0.6	0.0	95	96.6	1.1	2.3	0.0
34	83.5	15.9	0.0	0.6	96	98.9	0.0	0.6	0.6
35	90.9	9.1	0.0	0.0	97	89.8	1.7	8.5	0.0
36	98.9	1.1	0.0	0.0	98	98.9	0.6	0.6	0.0
37	61.4	23.9	14.8	0.0	99	93.8	3.4	2.8	0.0
38	80.7	18.2	0.6	0.0	100	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
39	88.1	5.1	6.8	0.0	101	54.0	6.8	38.1	1.1
40	98.9	0.6	0.6	0.0	102	81.8	9.1	8.0	1.1
41	95.5	2.3	2.3	0.0	103	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
42	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	104	67.6	21.0	10.2	1.1
43	31.8	28.4	38.1	1.7	105	98.3	1.1	0.0	0.6
44	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	106	93.8	3.4	2.8	0.0
45	91.5	8.5	0.0	0.0	107	50.0	2.8	46.0	0.6
46	59.1	9.7	31.3	0.0	108	90.9	4.5	4.5	0.0
47	61.9	7.4	29.0	1.7	109	92.6	5.7	0.6	1.1
48	82.4	4.5	12.5	0.6	110	98.3	0.6	1.1	0.0
49	97.2	1.7	0.6	0.6	111	99.4	0.0	0.6	0.0
50	97.7	2.3	0.0	0.0	112	97.7	2.3	0.0	0.0
51	88.6	6.8	4.5	0.0	113	98.3	1.1	0.6	0.0
52	88.6	10.8	0.6	0.0	114	65.3	33.5	1.1	0.0
53	98.3	1.7	0.0	0.0	115	88.6	10.2	0.0	1.1
54	96.0	2.8	0.6	0.6	116	92.6	4.5	2.8	0.0
55	86.9	9.1	4.0	0.0	117	98.3	0.6	1.1	0.0
56	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	118	1.1	24.4	70.5	4.0
57	77.8	11.4	10.2	0.6	119	84.7	4.0	11.4	0.0
58	97.2	1.7	1.1	0.0	120	81.3	13.6	2.8	2.3
59	96.6	1.1	2.3	0.0	121	65.3	17.6	15.3	1.7
60	89.8	7.4	1.7	1.1	122	80.7	4.0	15.3	0.0
61	15.3	82.4	1.7	0.6	123	71.6	0.0	0.6	27.8
62	22.7	2.3	72.7	2.3

Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia Al. Jaú, 684, 7º andar, 01420-002 São Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 - 3873-4211 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@codas.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Conflict of interest: nothing to declare.