CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt
CoDAS
Brief Communication

Teste para avaliação do raciocínio clínico em Fonoaudiologia: validade de conteúdo

Test for clinical reasoning evaluation in Speech-Language Pathology: content validity

Ana Cristina Côrtes Gama; Aline Mansueto Mourão; Adriane Mesquita Medeiros; Patrícia Cotta Mancini; Thais Helena Machado; Lara Gama Santos; Nayara Ribeiro Gomes

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20242023276pt CoDAS, vol.36, n4, e20230276, 2024
PDF Português
PDF English
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 74

Resumo

Objetivo: validar o conteúdo do Teste de Concordância de Scripts em Fonoaudiologia, denominado FonoTCS. Método: Trata-se de estudo de validação de conteúdo de instrumento. Participaram da construção do FonoTCS cinco fonoaudiólogas, doutoras e docentes, com média de 24,8 anos de atuação profissional, que chegaram a um consenso durante o processo de construção do teste. Elaborou-se 30 questões e 120 itens contemplando as áreas de atuação fonoaudiológica. Em seguida, 15 fonoaudiólogas com titulação mínima de mestre, e com, no mínimo, 10 anos de atuação clínica generalista receberam eletronicamente o FonoTCS para validação de conteúdo por meio de questionário sobre critérios de clareza, ética e pertinência do conteúdo das questões. Para a análise das respostas calculou-se o Coeficiente de Validade de Conteúdo Corrigido de todas as afirmativas. Foram revisadas as questões com porcentagem de concordância igual ou inferior a 80%. Resultados: 13 avaliadores responderam a análise, todos do sexo feminino, com média de idade de 39,07 anos, sendo oito mestres e cinco doutoras, com atuação clínica generalista média de 15,38 anos. Os valores médios do Coeficiente de Validade de Conteúdo Corrigido foram 0,93 e 0,95 para o critério de clareza; 0,98 e 0,92 para o critério de pertinência; e 0,99 para o critério de ética. Duas questões apresentaram notas de 0,78 e 0,80, sendo ambas da área de audiologia no domínio de avaliação/diagnóstico, para a questão relacionada ao critério de pertinência, sendo revisadas e reestruturadas pelos juízes. Conclusão: O FonoTCS é um instrumento válido do ponto de vista do conteúdo.

Palavras-chave

Fonoaudiologia; Raciocínio Clínico; Diagnóstico Clínico; Tomada de Decisão Clínica; Estudantes; Aprendizagem

Abstract

Purpose: To validate the content of the Speech-Language Pathology Concordance Test called FonoTCS. Methods: This is a content validation study of the instrument. Five speech-language pathologists, all with doctoral degrees and teaching experience, averaging 24.8 years of professional practice, participated in the development of FonoTCS and reached a consensus during the process. Thirty questions and 120 items were created, covering seven areas of speech-language pathology expertise across three domains. For content validation, FonoTCS was electronically sent to 15 evaluators to respond to a questionnaire with five questions, rated on a five-point scale, regarding the criteria of clarity, ethics, and relevance of the questions. The Corrected Content Validity Coefficient was calculated for all statements to analyze the responses. Questions with agreement percentages equal to or less than 80% were revised. Results: Thirteen evaluators, all female, with an average age of 39.07 years, including eight with master’s degrees and five with doctoral degrees, and an average clinical practice experience of 15.38 years, participated in the analysis. The average Corrected Content Validity Coefficient values for the clarity criterion were 0.93 and 0.95, for the relevance criterion 0.98 and 0.92, and for the ethics criterion 0.99. Two questions received scores of 0.78 and 0.80, both related to the audiology area in the assessment/ diagnosis domain, specifically question 2 regarding the relevance criterion. These questions were reviewed and restructured by the judges. Conclusion: FonoTCS is a valid instrument from a content perspective.

Keywords

Speech-Language Pathology; Clinical Reasoning; Clinical Diagnosis; Clinical Decision-Making; Students; Learning

Referencias

  1. Norman G. Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends. Med Educ. 2005;39(4):418-27.

    http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.x PMid:15813765

  2. Cerullo JASB, Cruz DALM. Raciocínio clínico e pensamento crítico. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2010;18(1):1-6. PMid:20428689

  3. Custers EJ. Medical education and cognitive continuum theory: an alternative perspective on medical problem solving and clinical reasoning. Acad Med. 2013;88(8):1074-80.

    http://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829a3b10 PMid:23807108

  4. Beckie TM, Lowry LW, Barnett S. Assessing critical thinking in baccalaureate nursing students: a longitudinal study. Holist Nurs Pract. 2001;15(3):18-26.

    http://doi.org/10.1097/00004650-200104000-00006 PMid:12120107

  5. Hoben K, Varley R, Cox R. Clinical reasoning skills of speech and language therapy students. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2007;42(Suppl 1):123-35.

    http://doi.org/10.1080/13682820601171530 PMid:17454240

  6. Schmidt HG, Rikers RJ. How Expertise develops in medicine: knowledge encapsulation and illness scripts formation. Med Educ. 2007;41(12):1133-9.

    http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02915.x PMid:18004989

  7. Peixoto JM, Santos SME, Faria RMD, Moura AS. Clinical reasoning development in medical students. Rev Bras Educ Med. 2018;42(1):75-83.

    http://doi.org/10.1590/1981-52712015v41n4rb20160079

  8. Schmidt HG, Mamede S. How to improve the teaching of clinical reasoning: a narrative review and a proposal. Med Educ. 2015;49(10):961-97.

    http://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12775 PMid:26383068

  9. Brasil. Ministério da Educação. Conselho Nacional de Educação Câmara de Educação Superior. Resolução CNE/CES nº 5, de 19 de fevereiro de 2002. Institui as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais do Curso de Graduação em Fonoaudiologia [Internet]. Diário Oficial da União; Brasília; 2002 [citado em 2022 Nov 13].

    https://portal.mec.gov.br/cne/arquivos/pdf/CES052002.pdf

  10. Eva KW. What every teacher needs to know about clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2004;39(1):98-106.

    http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01972.x PMid:15612906

  11. Lake S, Mclnnes RJ. Exploring cognitive skill development in midwifery education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2012;12(5):264-8.

    http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.04.015 PMid:22683107

  12. Ginsberg SM, Friberg JC, Visconti CF. Diagnostic reasoning by experienced speech-language pathologists and student clinicians. Commun Sci Disord. 2016;43:87-97

  13. Deschênes MF, Charlin B, Gagnon R, Goudreau J. Use of a script concordance test to assess development of clinical reasoning in nursing students. J Nurs Educ. 2011;50(7):381-7.

    http://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20110331-03 PMid:21449528

  14. Fournier JP, Demeester A, Charlin B. Script concordance test: guidelines for construction. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8(1):18.

    http://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-18 PMid:18460199

  15. Dory V, Gagnon R, Vanpee D, Charlin B. How to construct and implement script concordance tests: insights from a systematic review. Med Educ. 2012;46(6):552-63.

    http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04211.x PMid:22626047

  16. See KC, Tan KL, Lim TK. The script concordance test for clinical reasoning: re-examining its utility and potential weakness. Med Educ. 2014;48(11):1069-77.

    http://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12514 PMid:25307634

  17. Kelkar AJ, Bhandary S, Chacko T. Addressing the need to develop critical thinking skills in the new competency-based medical education post graduate curriculum in pathology: experience-sharing of the process of development and validation of script concordance test. AM&HS. 2022;10(2):160-7.

    http://doi.org/10.4103/amhs.amhs_227_22

  18. Redmond C, Jayanth A, Beresford S, Carroll L, Johnston ANB. Development and validation of a script concordance test to assess biosciences clinical reasoning skills: A cross-sectional study of 1st year undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;119:105615.

    http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105615 PMid:36334475

  19. Vital S, Wulfman C, Girard F, Tamimi F, Charlin B, Ducret M. Script concordance tests: a call for action in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ. 2020;25(4):705-10.

    http://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12649 PMid:33486880

  20. Cobb KA, Brown G, Hammond R, Mossop LH. Students’ perceptions of the script concordance test and its impact on their learning behavior: a mixed methods study. J Vet Med Educ. 2015;42(1):45-52.

    http://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.0514-057R1 PMid:25526762

  21. O’Brien SR, Dillon N, Linskey M, Lagueras K, Uhl J, Conroy S, et al. Initial validation of a script concordance test to measure the development of clinical reasoning among physical therapy residents. JCEPT. 2023;5:1-9.

    http://doi.org/10.52214/jcept.v5.9014

  22. Piovezan RD, Custódio O, Cendoroglo MS, Batista NA. Teste de Concordância de Scripts: uma proposta para a avaliação do raciocínio clínico em contextos de incerteza. Rev Bras Educ Med. 2010;34(1):5-12.

    http://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-55022010000100002

  23. Menezes SSC. Avaliação do raciocínio clínico: adaptação e validação do Test de Concordance de Scripts Human Caring [tese]. São Paulo: Escola de Enfermagem, Universidade de São Paulo; 2016.

  24. Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37(9):830-7.

    http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x PMid:14506816

  25. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). The standards for educational and psychological testing [Internet]. Washington: AERA; 2014 [citado em 2022 Nov 13].

    https://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/standards

  26. Gagnon R, Charlin B, Roy L, St-Martin M, Sauvé E, Boshuizen HPA, et al. The cognitive validity of the Script Concordance Test: a processing time study. Teach Learn Med. 2006;18(1):22-7.

    http://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1801_6 PMid:16354136

  27. Charlin B, Roy L, Brailovsky C, Goulet F, van der Vleuten C. The Script Concordance test: a tool to assess the reflective clinician. Teach Learn Med. 2000;12(4):189-95.

    http://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1204_5 PMid:11273368

  28. Aldekhayel SA, Alselaim NA, Magzoub ME, Al-Qattan MM, Al-Namlah AM, Tamim H, et al. Constructing a question bank based on script concordance approach as a novel assessment methodology in surgical education. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:100.

    http://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-100 PMid:23095569

  29. Hernández-Nieto RA. Contributions to statistical analysis. Mérida: Universidad de Los Andes; 2002.

  30. Lubarsky S, Dory VR, Duggan P, Gagnon R, Charlin B. Script concordance testing: from theory to practice: AMEE Guide No. 75. Med Teach. 2013;35(3):184-93.

    http://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.760036 PMid:23360487

Submitted date:
13/11/2023

Accepted date:
18/01/2024

68d32ab8a953952c1c4f54d4 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Electrónico)
CoDAS ©2025 Todos los derechos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections