• Users Online: 215
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 75

Face and content validity of the macarthur competence assessment tool for the treatment of iranian patients


1 PhD in Medical Ethics, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
2 Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Psychiatry, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
4 Department of Epidemiology, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
5 Department of Psychology, Medical Faculty, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
6 Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences; Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Bagher Larijani
23# 16 Azar Ave, Keshavarz Blvd, Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_367_16

Rights and Permissions

Background: There is not a valid Persian tool for measuring the decision-making competency of patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the face and content validity of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for the treatment of Iranian Persian-speaking patients. Methods: To assess the validity of the Persian version of the tool, a self-administrated questionnaire was designed. The Lawshe method was also used for assessing each item. Content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) were used to assess the content validity quantitatively. According to the experts' judgment, questions with a CVR ≥0.62 and CVR <0.62 were maintainable and unmaintainable, respectively. Results: The questions were designed in a manner to achieve the desirable result (CVR ≥0.62). The CVI scale (S-CVI) and CVI (S-CVI/Ave) were 0.94 (higher than 0.79). Thus, the content validity was confirmed. Conclusions: Since capacity assessments are usually based on physician's subjective judgment, they are likely to bias and therefore, with this suitably validated tool, we can improve judgment of physicians and health-care providers in out- and in-patient cases.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1668    
    Printed39    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded166    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal