Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: The Content and Quality in Briefs Instrument (CQB-I) was designed to develop a valid and reliable audit instrument to examine the content and quality of information in documents (briefs) created in the early stages of designing healthcare environments.
Background: The importance of effective briefing has been emphasized in many research studies during the past two decades. However, there is no developed instrument for auditing the content and quality of these documents.
Methods: The study had a methodological and developmental design based on an established methodology for instrument development and validation. The development process consisted of three main phases: (1) item generation and scale construction; (2) assessment of face and content validity, and (3) testing of the reliability. To obtain face and content validity, expert panels reviewed the COB-I. Content validity was assessed using the Content Validity Index (I - CVI = item level, S - CVI = scale level). Reliability was tested by test-retest and inter-rater reliability.
Results: CQB-I was found to have good content validity (I - CVI = 0.78 - 1.0 and S - CVI = 0.98). Inter-rater reliability was acceptable (Spearman's correlation = 0.62) and stability was considered high for both raters (83% and 88%, respectively).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/193758671200500308 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!