Table 2.
Fictitious rating on an 18-item scale by eight experts (Part II, Section 1)
| Item | Expert 1 | Expert 2 | Expert 3 | Expert 4 | Expert 5 | Expert 6 | Expert 7 | Expert 8 | Number in Agreement | Item CVI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 2 | x | x | x | x | x | x | _ | x | 7 | 0.88 |
| 3 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 4 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 5 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 6 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 7 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 8 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 9 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 10 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 11 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 12 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 13 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 14 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 15 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 16 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 17 | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | 8 | 1.00 |
| 18 | x | x | x | _ | x | x | x | x | 7 | 0.88 |
| Mean I-CVI = | 0.99 | |||||||||
| Proportion Relevant: | S-CVI/UA = | 0.89 | ||||||||
| 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 1.00 | Mean expert proportion = | 0.98 |
I-CVI item-level content validity index, S-CVI/UA scale-level content validity index, universal agreement calculation method