Table 2.
Content validity results for program components by advisory board member.
| Relevancea | Clarityb | Simplicityc | Ambiguityd | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Components 1, 2, and 3 | ||||
| Tenured faculty member #1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Tenured faculty member #2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Clinical track faculty member #1 | 4 | 3 | 3.5 | 2 |
| Clinical track faculty member #2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Graduate student | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Undergraduate student | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
|
| ||||
| Components 4 and 5 | ||||
| Tenured faculty member #1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Tenured faculty member #2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Clinical track faculty member #1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| Clinical track faculty member #2 | 4 | 4 | 2.5 | 4 |
| Graduate student | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Undergraduate student | 4 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
a
1-Not relevant, 2-Needs some revision, 3-Needs minor revision, 4-Very relevant;
b
1-Content is clear, 2-Content needs some revision, 3-Content needs minor revision, 4-Content very clear;
c
1-Not simple, 2-Needs some revision, 3-Needs minor revision, 4-Very simple;
d
1-Doubtful, 2-Needs some revision, 3-Needs minor revision, 4-Meaning is clear