A Portable Multi-user Cross-Platform Virtual Reality Platform for School Teaching in Malawi

Scale developers often provide evidence of content validity by computing a content validity index (CVI), using ratings of item relevance by content experts. We analyzed how nurse researchers have defined and calculated the CVI, and found considerable consistency for item-level CVIs (I-CVIs). However, there are two alternative, but unacknowledged, methods of computing the scale-level index (S-CVI). One method requires universal agreement among experts, but a less conservative method averages the item-level CVIs. Using backward inference with a purposive sample of scale development studies, we found that both methods are being used by nurse researchers, although it was not always possible to infer the calculation method. The two approaches can lead to different values, making it risky to draw conclusions about content validity. Scale developers should indicate which method was used to provide readers with interpretable content validity information. (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Nurse researchers typically provide evidence of content validity for instruments by computing a content validity index (CVI), based on experts' ratings of item relevance. We compared the CVI to alternative indexes and concluded that the widely-used CVI has advantages with regard to ease of computation, understandability, focus on agreement of relevance rather than agreement per se, focus on consensus rather than consistency, and provision of both item and scale information. One weakness is its failure to adjust for chance agreement. We solved this by translating item-level CVIs (I-CVIs) into values of a modified kappa statistic. Our translation suggests that items with an I-CVI of .78 or higher for three or more experts could be considered evidence of good content validity.