Limits...
Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Power E, Thomas E, Worrall L, Rose M, Togher L, Nickels L, Hersh D, Godecke E, O'Halloran R, Lamont S, O'Connor C, Clarke K - BMJ Open (2015)

Bottom Line: All 74 statements were then rated again in the face-to-face second round. 16 statements were added through splitting existing items or adding new statements.Seven statements were deleted leaving 83 statements.Agreement was reached for 82 of the final 83 statements.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Overview of RAND/UCLA process as applied to the development of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Best Practice Statements (adapted from Fitch et al28 and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland).27 NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council; RAM, RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499686&req=5

BMJOPEN2015007641F1: Overview of RAND/UCLA process as applied to the development of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Best Practice Statements (adapted from Fitch et al28 and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland).27 NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council; RAM, RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Mentions: We utilised the RAM22 to develop and validate the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Best Practice Statements. The RAM consists of a literature review and development of a list of ‘indications’, which we termed best practice statements. These statements were then rated for their degree of appropriateness by an expert panel in two rounds using a modified Delphi technique. The RAM approach has produced results that are valid32 and reliable.2833 An overview of the process involved in developing and validating the RAM statements is found in figure 1, while a detailed timeline of processing and events can be found on the AARP website (http://www.aphasiapathway.com.au/flux-content/aarp/pdf/Australian-Aphasia-Rehabilitation-Pathway-RAM-Timeline.pdf). The first round of ratings was conducted via email, while the second round of ratings was conducted face-to-face. The inclusion of a face-to-face round has been described as advantageous compared with traditional Delphi methods because it allows for greater opportunities for discussion and clarification of statement wording and evidence.31


Development and validation of Australian aphasia rehabilitation best practice statements using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Power E, Thomas E, Worrall L, Rose M, Togher L, Nickels L, Hersh D, Godecke E, O'Halloran R, Lamont S, O'Connor C, Clarke K - BMJ Open (2015)

Overview of RAND/UCLA process as applied to the development of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Best Practice Statements (adapted from Fitch et al28 and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland).27 NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council; RAM, RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4499686&req=5

BMJOPEN2015007641F1: Overview of RAND/UCLA process as applied to the development of the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Best Practice Statements (adapted from Fitch et al28 and NHS Quality Improvement Scotland).27 NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council; RAM, RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.
Mentions: We utilised the RAM22 to develop and validate the Australian Aphasia Rehabilitation Best Practice Statements. The RAM consists of a literature review and development of a list of ‘indications’, which we termed best practice statements. These statements were then rated for their degree of appropriateness by an expert panel in two rounds using a modified Delphi technique. The RAM approach has produced results that are valid32 and reliable.2833 An overview of the process involved in developing and validating the RAM statements is found in figure 1, while a detailed timeline of processing and events can be found on the AARP website (http://www.aphasiapathway.com.au/flux-content/aarp/pdf/Australian-Aphasia-Rehabilitation-Pathway-RAM-Timeline.pdf). The first round of ratings was conducted via email, while the second round of ratings was conducted face-to-face. The inclusion of a face-to-face round has been described as advantageous compared with traditional Delphi methods because it allows for greater opportunities for discussion and clarification of statement wording and evidence.31

Bottom Line: All 74 statements were then rated again in the face-to-face second round. 16 statements were added through splitting existing items or adding new statements.Seven statements were deleted leaving 83 statements.Agreement was reached for 82 of the final 83 statements.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia Centre for Clinical Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus