Table 2.
Content validation of IAM4all items: level 2 - cognitive impact.
| Post interview items | Prepanel item development | Expert panel (N=20) | |||||||
| Theoretical model | Critical review | Previous work on the IAM | Consultation with 8 researchers |
Interviews with 16 laypersons | Item relevance | Clarity | Representa-tiveness | Specificity | |
| Cognitive impact | x | x | x | x | x |
|
|
75% | 55% |
| 9. I learned something new |
|
x | x | x | x | 100% | 100% |
|
|
| 10. This information confirmed I did (am doing) the right thing |
|
x | x | x | x | 100% | 85% |
|
|
| 11. I was reassured |
|
x | x | x | x | 80% | 80% |
|
|
| 12. I was reminded of something I already knew |
|
|
x | x | x | 100% | 95% |
|
|
| 13. I am motivated to learn more |
|
|
|
|
x | 95% | 90% |
|
|
| 14. I understood this information |
|
x | x | x | x | 90% | 95% |
|
|
| 15. I was dissatisfied |
|
|
x | x | x | 85% | 75% |
|
|
| 16. There is a problem with this information |
|
|
x | x | x | 85% | 85% |
|
|
| 17. This information could be harmful |
|
|
x |
|
x | 65% | 65% |
|
|