Content Validity Testing of a Nurse-Led Pediatric Dysphagia Screening Tool for Acute and Critical Care Settings Using eDelphi Methodology

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Pediatric oropharyngeal dysphagia screening protocols remain limited in acute and critical care settings due to the lack of psychometrically valid and reliable tools. Objectives: The eDelphi methodology was employed to establish content validity for the Children’s Oral Feeding Screener (COFS), a novel, nurse-led oropharyngeal dysphagia screening tool for hospitalized children in acute and critical care (0–16 years). Methods: The two-round eDelphi study was completed using Qualtrics®. A multidisciplinary, international steering-group guided tool conceptualization, elements for rating in the eDelphi, and oversaw consensus decisions. Experienced speech pathologists in pediatric acute and/or critical care were invited as panelists and rated tool content regarding (a) clinical presentations requiring immediate referral for dysphagia assessment; (b) oral trial component/s; and (c) signs observed during oral trials suggesting dysphagia. Items were rated on a 10-point Likert scale, and panelists could give open-ended feedback. Items not reaching pre-defined consensus (>75%) were re-presented in round two. Results: Fifty panelists participated in round one and 41 in round two, primarily from Australia (n = 19; 46%) and the United Kingdom (n = 13; 34%). Half (n = 22; 54%) had >10 years’ experience. Based on consensus scores, panelists’ qualitative feedback, and steering group decision, final items included eight clinical presentations, three oral trial elements (cup, bottle, breastfeeding) with three associated oral trial protocols, and fourteen signs suggestive of dysphagia. Other feedback led to changes to headings and the format of the COFS layout. Conclusions: Content validity for items in the three components of the COFS was established. Further work is now required to explore other psychometric properties (construct validity, sensitivity/specificity, and feasibility) in clinical settings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.