Validación de contenido, apariencia y factibilidad de un formulario clínico-epidemiológico para la vigilancia de la endoftalmitis posoperatoria
Palabras clave:
endoftalmitis; validez de contenido; factibilidad; vigilancia epidemiológica; formulario clínicoResumen
Objetivo: Evaluar la validez de contenido, apariencia, aceptabilidad y factibilidad del Formulario Clínico-Epidemiológico de Endoftalmitis Posoperatoria.
Métodos: Estudio de desarrollo e innovación tecnológica en salud, con diseño secuencial. Se realizó la validación de contenido y apariencia, mediante el juicio de siete expertos. Se calcularon el índice de validez de contenido por ítem y el promedio por escala. Se aplicó una prueba piloto con 30 médicos oftalmólogos, mediante 30 historias clínicas anonimizadas y se evaluaron indicadores de factibilidad y aceptabilidad.
Resultados: El panel de expertos mostró un coeficiente de competencia global alto (K = 0,85). La validez de contenido inicial (S-CVI/Ave) fue de 0,94. Tras la retroalimentación cualitativa y cuantitativa, se reformularon cinco ítems, que resultó en una segunda versión (76 ítems) con un S-CVI/Ave de 0,97. La validez de apariencia alcanzó un acuerdo favorable del 96,4 %. En la prueba piloto, la mediana de tiempo de llenado fue de 12 minutos, la completitud de los campos esenciales del 97,8 % y el 100 % de los participantes recomendó su uso institucional. La versión final conservó 13 dimensiones y 76 ítems.
Conclusiones: El FOCEP posee adecuada validez de contenido y apariencia, así como alta aceptabilidad y factibilidad, lo que lo convierte en un instrumento idóneo para la vigilancia epidemiológica de la endoftalmitis posoperatoria asociada a cirugía de catarata.
Descargas
Citas
1. Bernardi FA, Alves D, Crepaldi NZ, Yamada DB, Lima VC, Rijo RPCL. Data quality in health research: integrative literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e41446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/41446
2. Ehrenstein V, Petersen I, Smeeth L, Jick SS, Benchimol EI, Ludvigsson JF, et al. Helping everyone do better: a call for validation studies of routinely recorded health data. Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:49-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S104448
3. Ranganathan P, Caduff C. Designing and validating a research questionnaire - Part 1. Perspect Clin Res. 2023;14(3):152-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_140_23
4. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
5. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
6. Yusoff MSB. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Educ Med J. 2019;11(2):49-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6
7. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(2):214-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066
8. Gattrell WT, Logullo P, van Zuuren EJ, Price A, Hughes EL, Blazey P, et al. ACCORD: a reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi. PLoS Med. 2024;21(1):e1004326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004326
9. Connell J, Carlton J, Grundy A, Taylor Buck E, Keetharuth AD, Ricketts T, et al. The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(7):1893-902. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y
10. Dalawi I, Isa MR, Chen XW, Azhar ZI, Aimran N. Development of the Malay Language of understanding, attitude, practice and health literacy questionnaire on COVID-19: content validity and face validity analysis. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:1131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16044-5
11. Ghorayeb A, Darbyshire JL, Wronikowska MW, Watkinson PJ. Design and validation of a new Healthcare Systems Usability Scale for clinical decision support systems: a mixed-methods approach. BMJ Open. 2023;13(1):e065323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065323
12. Fields BE, Carbery M, Schulz R, Rodakowski J, Terhorst L, Still C. Evaluation of face validity and acceptability of the Care Partner Hospital Assessment Tool. Innov Aging. 2023;7(2):igad011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igad011
13. Teresi JA, Yu X, Stewart AL, Hays RD. Guidelines for designing and evaluating feasibility pilot studies. Med Care. 2022;60(1):95-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001664
14. Bro T, Behndig A, Stenevi U. Two point four million cataract surgeries: 30 years with the Swedish National Cataract Register, 1992-2021. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49(8):879-84. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001209
15. Royal College of Ophthalmologists National Ophthalmology Database Audit. National Cataract Audit: seventh annual report 2024. London: RCOphth NOD; 2024 [acceso 15/07/2026]. Disponible en: https://nodaudit.org.uk/sites/default/files/202405/NOD%20Cataract%20Audit%207th%20Annual%20Report%202024_1.pdf
16. Luz RA, Assis DB, Madalosso G, Timmons S, Padoveze MC. Surveillance system for healthcare associated endophthalmitis at state level in a middle-income country: preliminary results. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2022 Nov 4;87(4):e2022-0181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2022-0181
17. Bujang MA, Omar ED, Foo DHP, Hon YK. Sample size determination for conducting a pilot study to assess reliability of a questionnaire. Restor Dent Endod. 2024;49(1):e3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2024.49.e3
18. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
19. Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z. Content validity index in scale development (Zhong Nan Da Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban). Journal of Central South University. Med. 2012 [acceso 22/06/2025];37(2):152-55. Disponible en: https://scispace.com/papers/content-validity-index-in-scale-development-3h5y5t4blb
20. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human participants. JAMA. 2025;333(1):71-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.21972
21. Mokkink LB, Elsman EBM, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0. Qual Life Res. 2024;33:2929-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6
22. Schifano J, Niederberger M. How Delphi studies in the health sciences find consensus: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2025;14(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02782-0
23. Jamali AA, Khoumbhati KUR, Shah AA, Bhutto A. Validating of Survey Instrument in the Perspective of Computer Technology-based Learning. The Asian Bulletin of Big Data Management. 2023;(3)1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62019/abbdm.v3i1.44
24. Rinaldi E, Stellmach C, Thun S. How to design electronic case report form questions to maximize semantic interoperability in clinical research. Interact J Med Res. 2025;14:e51598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/51598
25. De Ruijter A, Van Exel J, Mouter N. “It should be relevant, reliable and feasible”: Introducing FACE, an instrument for assessing the face validity of choice experiments. J Choice Model. 2026;49:100470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2026.100609
26. Cocchi S, Cipolat Mis C, Mazzocut M, Barbieri I, Bassi M, Cavuto S, et al. Content and Face Validity of the Evaluation Tool of Health Information for Consumers (ETHIC): Getting Health Information Accessible to Patients and Citizens. Healthcare. 2023;11(8):1170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11081170
27. Heggdal K, Thompson K, Stepanian N, de Jacq K, Frederickson K. Development and validation of a broadly applicable instrument to measure patients’ health promotion and empowerment process in chronic disease. Chronic Illn. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17423953241302115
28. Soriano K, Nakatani S, Onishi K, Ito H, Nakano Y, Takashima Y, et al. Development and Content Validation of a Person-Centered Care Instrument for Healthcare Providers. Nurs Rep. 2025;15(10):174. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15100174
29. Montgomery RN, Bodde AE, Vidoni ED. Jointly assessing multiple endpoints in pilot and feasibility studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2025;34(3):561-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802241311219
30. Sartor L, Samarawickrama C. Trial of an Internet‐Based Cataract and Lens Exchange Registry in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital: Insights and Impact on Clinical Workflow. Journal of Ophthalmology, 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/joph/7251635
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Revista Cubana de Oftalmología
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0.
El contenido de la revista se encuentra accesible sin costo alguno. Está protegido por los términos de la Licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
