A comprehensive process of content validation of curriculum consensus guidelines for a medical specialty

References

• American Educational Research Association AERA, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. 2001. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Psychological Association
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. 1999. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Psychological Association
   Google Scholar
• Audiss D, Roth T. Application of grounded theory to content definition: A case study. Topics Health Inform Manag 1999; 19(2)47–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berk RA. Importance of expert judgment in content-related validity evidence. Western J Nurs Res 1990; 12: 659–673
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bordage G, Brailovsky C, Carretier H, Page G. Content validation of key features on a national examination of clinical decision-making skills. Acad Med 1995; 70: 276–281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan RL, Prediger DJ. Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educ Psychol Meas 1981; 41: 687–699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridge PD, Musial J, Frank R, Roe T, Sawilowsky S. Measurement practices: Methods for developing content-valid student examinations. Med Teach 2003; 25: 414–421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Card S, Snell L, O’Brien B. Are Canadian General Internal Medicine training program graduates well prepared for their future careers?. BMC Med Educ 2006; 6: 56–65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen J. A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1969; 20: 37–46
   Google Scholar
• Crossley J, Humphris G, Jolly B. Assessing health professionals. Med Educ 2002; 36: 800–804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downing S. Validity: On the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003; 37: 830–837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971; 76(5)378–382
   Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine De Gruyter, New York 1967
   Google Scholar
• Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health, 1997; 20: 269–274
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadden DR, 2006. The case for an obstetric physician. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 36. Availabel from: http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/journal/index.php
   Google Scholar
• Harden RM. Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: Is there a difference?. Med Teach 2002; 242: 151–155
   Google Scholar
• Harden RM, Crosby JR, Davis MH, Friedman M. AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education; Part 5 – From competency to meta-competency: A model for the specification of learning outcomes. Med Teach 1999; 21(6)546–552
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris I. What does “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” have to say to medical education?. Adv Health Sci Educ 2003; 8: 49–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000; 32: 1008–1015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt RJ. Percent agreement, Pearson's correlation, and Kappa as measures of inter-rater reliability. J Dental Res 1986; 65(2)128–130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311: 376–380
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy TJ, Lindgard LA. Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Med Educ 2006; 40(2)101–108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern DE. Curriculum development for medical education. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 2009
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee RV. What maternal mortality statistics tell us: High-risk pregnancy, a consequence of medical progress. J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 23(5)532–534
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee RV. Medical care of the pregnant patient. American College of Physicians, Philadelphia 2001, 2008
   Google Scholar
• Linstone HA, Turoff, M. 2002. The Delphi method, techniques and applications. Available from http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Lynn M. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986; 35: 382–385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maclure M, Willett WC. Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 126: 161–169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin J, Coderre S, Woloshuk W, Mandin H. Does blueprint publication affect student's perception of validity of the evaluation process?. Adv Health Sci Educ 2005; 10: 15–22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro. N, Rughani A, Foulkes J, Wilson A, Neighbour R. Assessing validity in written tests of general practice – Exploration by factor analysis of candidate response patterns to Paper 1 of the MRCGP examination. Med Educ 2000; 34: 35–41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nelson-Piercy C. Obstetric medicine training: Picking up where the licentiate in midwifery left off. Clin Med 2002; 2(2)119–121
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newble D. Techniques for measuring clinical competence: Objective structured clinical examinations. Med Educ 2004; 38: 199–203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newble DI. Assessing clinical competence at the undergraduate level. Med Educ 1992; 26: 504–511
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powrie R, Kweder S, Rosene-Montella K. Teaching Internal Medicine residents about medical problems in pregnancy. Acad Med 2000; 75(2)191–193
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raghoebar-Krieger HMJ, Sleijfer DT, Kreeftenberg HG, Hofstee WKB, Bender W. Objectives for an internship internal medicine: From the Dutch Blueprint (Raamplan 1994) to implementation into a practical logbook. Netherlands J Med 1999; 55(4)165–167
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Randolph JJ, 2005. Free-marginal multirater kappa: An alternative to Fleiss’ fixed-marginal multirater kappa. Joensuu University Learning and Instruction Symposium. Joensuu, Finland, 14–15 October 2005
   Google Scholar
• Ratanawongsa N, Federowicz MA, Christmas C, Hanyok LA, Record JD, Hellman DB, Ziegelstein RC, Rand CS, 2011. Effects of a focused patient-centered care curriculum on the experiences of Internal Medicine residents and their patients. J Gen Inter Med, published online 27 September 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1881-8
   Google Scholar
• RCPSC. (2005) Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; CanMEDS 2005 framework. Avaliable from http://rcpsc.medical.org/canmeds/index.php
   Google Scholar
• Strauss A, Corbin, J. 1997. Grounded theory in practice. Sage
   Google Scholar
• Tilden VP, Nelson CA, May BA. Use of qualitative methods to enhance content validity. Nurs Res 1990; 39: 172–175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tombleson P, Fox R, Dacre J. Defining the content for the objective structured clinical examination component of the professional and linguistic assessment board examinations: Development of a blueprint. Med Educ 2000; 34: 566–572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogt DS, King DW, King LA. Focus groups in psychological assessment: Enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychol Assessment, 2004; 16: 231–243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters BN. Obstetric Medicine, its premise and promise. Aust New Zealand J Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 44: 295–297
   PubMedGoogle Scholar