↓ Skip to main content

Instrumento de rastreio para disfagia orofaríngea no Acidente Vascular Encefálico - Parte I: evidências de validade baseadas no conteúdo e nos processos de resposta

Overview of attention for article published in CoDAS, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Instrumento de rastreio para disfagia orofaríngea no Acidente Vascular Encefálico - Parte I: evidências de validade baseadas no conteúdo e nos processos de resposta
Published in
CoDAS, August 2017
DOI 10.1590/2317-1782/20172017009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatiana Magalhães de Almeida, Paula Cristina Cola, Leandro de Araújo Pernambuco, Hipólito Virgílio Magalhães Junior, Carlos Daniel Magnoni, Roberta Gonçalves da Silva

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to identify the evidence of validity based on the content and response process of the Rastreamento de Disfagia Orofaríngea no Acidente Vascular Encefálico (RADAVE; "Screening Tool for Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Stroke"). The criteria used to elaborate the questions were based on a literature review. A group of judges consisting of 19 different health professionals evaluated the relevance and representativeness of the questions, and the results were analyzed using the Content Validity Index. In order to evidence validity based on the response processes, 23 health professionals administered the screening tool and analyzed the questions using a structured scale and cognitive interview. The RADAVE structured to be applied in two stages. The first version consisted of 18 questions in stage I and 11 questions in stage II. Eight questions in stage I and four in stage II did not reach the minimum Content Validity Index, requiring reformulation by the authors. The cognitive interview demonstrated some misconceptions. New adjustments were made and the final version was produced with 12 questions in stage I and six questions in stage II. It was possible to develop a screening tool for dysphagia in stroke with adequate evidence of validity based on content and response processes. Both validity evidences obtained so far allowed to adjust the screening tool in relation to its construct. The next studies will analyze the other evidences of validity and the measures of accuracy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Psychology 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2018.
All research outputs
#17,155,195
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#35
of 92 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,768
of 331,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 92 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them