. 2024 Dec 3;34(3):763–775. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03850-6

Table 1.

Content of expert consultation questionnaire

Sections	Content
Section 1: Survey Introduction	(1) Study overview: background, purpose, and significance of the study; (2) Development process: the process of constructing the first draft of the dimensions and items; (3) Expert consultation: the purpose of expert consultation, questionnaire components, expected return time, and contact information of the researchers
Section 2: Experts’ Information and Self-evaluation	(1) Basic information of experts: including age, gender, department, years of work, highest education; technical title, and main research fields; (2) Consensus (Cs): Self-evaluation of the expert’s familiarity with the consultation content. Scores were assigned as follows: very familiar (1.0), more familiar (0.8), generally familiar (0.5), less familiar (0.3), and unfamiliar (0.1); (3) Criterion of Appropriateness (Ca): Self-evaluation by experts of the basis for their judgment in expressing their opinions. Scores were assigned as follows: practical experience (0.5, 0.4, 0.3), theoretical analysis (0.3, 0.2, 0.1), references (0.1, 0.1, 0.1), and intuition (0.1, 0.1, 0.1)
Section 3: Expert assessment and recommendations for dimensions and items	(1) First draft of the dimensions and items; (2) Reasonability of the dimensions and items was evaluated by experts using a 5-point Likert scale: Very important (5 points), Important (4 points), Fair (3 points), Not Very important (2 points), Unimportant (1 point); (3) Modification Comments: comments from experts on any dimensions and items are invited, including adding, removing, or modifying

Sections

Content

Section 1:

Survey Introduction

(1) Study overview: background, purpose, and significance of the study;

(2) Development process: the process of constructing the first draft of the dimensions and items;

(3) Expert consultation: the purpose of expert consultation, questionnaire components, expected return time, and contact information of the researchers

Section 2:

Experts’ Information and Self-evaluation

(1) Basic information of experts: including age, gender, department, years of work, highest education; technical title, and main research fields;

(2) Consensus (Cs): Self-evaluation of the expert’s familiarity with the consultation content. Scores were assigned as follows: very familiar (1.0), more familiar (0.8), generally familiar (0.5), less familiar (0.3), and unfamiliar (0.1);

(3) Criterion of Appropriateness (Ca): Self-evaluation by experts of the basis for their judgment in expressing their opinions. Scores were assigned as follows: practical experience (0.5, 0.4, 0.3), theoretical analysis (0.3, 0.2, 0.1), references (0.1, 0.1, 0.1), and intuition (0.1, 0.1, 0.1)

Section 3:

Expert assessment and recommendations for dimensions and items

(1) First draft of the dimensions and items;

(2) Reasonability of the dimensions and items was evaluated by experts using a 5-point Likert scale: Very important (5 points), Important (4 points), Fair (3 points), Not Very important (2 points), Unimportant (1 point);

(3) Modification Comments: comments from experts on any dimensions and items are invited, including adding, removing, or modifying