Spinal Cord Research Help
AboutCategoriesLatest ResearchContact
Subscribe
Spinal Cord Research Help

Making Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Research Accessible to Everyone. Simplified summaries of the latest research, designed for patients, caregivers and anybody who's interested.

Quick Links

  • Home
  • About
  • Categories
  • Latest Research
  • Disclaimer

Contact

  • Contact Us
© 2025 Spinal Cord Research Help

All rights reserved.

  1. Home
  2. Research
  3. Neurology
  4. Establishing Content Validity Evidence of the Pittsburgh Impairment Testing Tool (PITT) for Adults With Spina Bifida

Establishing Content Validity Evidence of the Pittsburgh Impairment Testing Tool (PITT) for Adults With Spina Bifida

Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil, 2022 · DOI: 10.46292/sci22-00001 · Published: July 1, 2022

NeurologyResearch Methodology & Design

Simple Explanation

This study focuses on evaluating a new tool, the Pittsburgh Impairment Testing Tool (PITT), designed to measure motor impairment in adults with spina bifida (SB). The tool categorizes individuals into four groups based on hip flexion and knee extension strength. The researchers sought expert feedback to determine the tool's content validity, ensuring that it accurately represents the motor impairment levels it intends to measure. Content validity is a critical first step in establishing the reliability and usefulness of a measurement tool. The study found high content validity for the PITT, suggesting that it is a practical method for clinicians and researchers to classify the extent of motor impairment in adults with SB. Experts agreed on the importance of hip flexor and knee extensor strength in determining motor level.

Study Duration
Not specified
Participants
26 subject-matter experts were invited, with 17 participating
Evidence Level
Not specified

Key Findings

  • 1
    The Pittsburgh Impairment Testing Tool (PITT) demonstrated high content validity, exceeding the minimum CVR threshold of 0.636, with an overall CVR of 0.89.
  • 2
    Experts agreed that hip flexors and knee extensors are critical muscles in determining motor level in adults with SB, supporting the inclusion of iliopsoas and quadriceps as key components of the tool.
  • 3
    The PITT was found to have high clinical utility, scoring 9 out of 10 points on Tyson’s clinical utility tool, indicating that it is practical and easy to use in clinical settings.

Research Summary

This study evaluated the content validity of the Pittsburgh Impairment Testing Tool (PITT), a novel motor impairment tool for adults with spina bifida (SB). Expert feedback was obtained, and content validity was measured using Lawshe’s content validity ratio (CVR). The study found that the PITT has high content validity, with a mean CVR of 0.89, exceeding the minimum threshold of 0.636. This suggests that the tool accurately represents the motor impairment levels it intends to measure. The tool also demonstrated high clinical utility, indicating that it is a practical and easy-to-use tool for clinicians and researchers in busy clinical settings for establishing and monitoring motor impairment levels in adults with SB.

Practical Implications

Clinical Practice

The PITT provides a simple and practical method for classifying motor impairment in adults with SB, which can aid in treatment planning and monitoring patient progress.

Research

The validated tool can be used in research studies to assess motor level and its relationship to various outcomes, such as ambulation and transfer ability.

Tool Development

The study supports the use of hip flexor and knee extensor strength as key determinants of motor level in this population, informing future tool development efforts.

Study Limitations

  • 1
    The tool may lack the ability to capture subtle changes in muscle strength, sacrificing discriminative ability for simplicity.
  • 2
    The tool was developed using data from adults with SB, and future research is needed to determine its applicability to children.
  • 3
    The study involves a small sample size and did not measure other types of validity or reliability of the tool.

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Neurology