To assess the content validity of the 40 items, a subgroup of patients (N = 26) were asked to rate the relevance or importance of each item on a scale from one to three: 1 = irrelevant, unimportant 2 = somewhat relevant, somewhat important 3 = very relevant, very important Mean relevance scores for each item were calculated.
Every week, Individual asks a new client (by fax or computer) to rate each article as "not relevant," "somewhat relevant," or "very relevant". The responses are fed into the system, making SMART even smarter.
Lynn [ 19] recommended using a relevance rating scale that provides ordinal level data by means of four Likert-like choices (4: extremely relevant, extremely important; 3: very relevant, very important; 2: somewhat relevant, somewhat important; 1: irrelevant, unimportant).
The evaluation followed the process suggested by Polit, Beck, and Owen (2007) in having experts rate each item on a 4-point Likert scale (not relevant, somewhat relevant, quite relevant, and very relevant) based on item clarity and conciseness.
To assess content validity of the items the patients were asked to rate the relevance or importance of each item on a scale from one to three where: 1 = irrelevant, unimportant; 2 = somewhat relevant, somewhat important; 3 = very relevant, very important.
They were asked to rate each item on the Chinese-language versions of the diagnostic interview guide based on relevance and semantic equivalence using the following 4-point Likert scale: 1 = not relevant (not appropriate), 2 = somewhat relevant (somewhat appropriate), 3 = relevant (quite appropriate), 4 = very relevant (very appropriate).
VR, Very relevant; SR, Somewhat relevant; SI, Somewhat irrelevant; NR, Not relevant.
These are summarised in Table 3.> -wrap-foot>> -wrap-foot> VR, Very relevant; SR, Somewhat relevant; SI, Somewhat irrelevant; NR, Not relevant.
Tables 2 and 3 were combined into Table 4 by keeping only the 16 top ranked research indicators.> -wrap-foot> VeryVerelevantant; SR, Somewhat relevant; SI, Somewhat irrelevant; NR, Not relevant.
The ranking of all items were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and the weighting developed as a scale of 0 (not relevant), 1 (somewhat irrelevant), 2 (somewhat relevant), and 4 (very relevant).
The experts were instructed to rate each item on a 4-point scale based on relevance and appropriateness, ranging from 1 (not relevant), 2 (somewhat relevant), 3 (quite relevant), to 4 (highly relevant).
