Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For two experts, the acceptable CVI value is at least 0.80.
“| Two experts | At least 0.80 | Davis (1992) |”
From ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation (2019) · cites this paper as Davis (1992)
For content validation, the minimum acceptable number of experts is two.
“It can be concurred that for content validation, the minimum acceptable expert number is two, however most of recommendations propose a minimum of six experts.”
From ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation (2019) · cites this paper as Davis (1992)
The relevance of an assessment tool has been frequently used to measure content validity.
“Despite the two aspects of content validity (i.e., relevant and representativeness of an assessment tool), the relevant of an assessment tool that was advocated by Davis (5) has been frequently used to measure the content validity (6, 7).”
From ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation (2019) · cites this paper as Davis (5)
The content validity index (CVI) was computed as the mean CVR across all retained items, with CVI ≥ 0.80 set as the threshold for overall framework validity.
“The content validity index (CVI) was computed as the mean CVR across all retained items, with CVI ≥ 0.80 set as the threshold for overall framework validity [38].”
From Toward Sustainable AI Literacy in Higher Education: A Delphi–AHP Approach to Identifying Key Components of AI/Data Extracurricular Programs (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
After revisions, all 30 items met the CVR threshold in a re-verification round, with CVI = 0.84, exceeding Davis's threshold of 0.80.
“After these revisions, all 30 items met the CVR threshold in a re-verification round (CVI = 0.84, exceeding Davis's [38] threshold of 0.80).”
From Toward Sustainable AI Literacy in Higher Education: A Delphi–AHP Approach to Identifying Key Components of AI/Data Extracurricular Programs (2026) · cites this paper as Davis's [38]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.20147 · Cited by 7,510 · see citing works
ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation
Department of Medical Education, S. O. M. S., & Yusoff, M. S. B. (2019) · Education in Medicine Journal · doi:10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6 · Cited by 2,098 · see citing works
“S-CVI/UA = (sum of UA scores)/(number of item) Note: The definition and formula were based on the recommendations by Lynn (8), Davis (5), Polit & Beck (6) and Polit et al. (7) www.eduimed.com 53 vi. S-CVI/UA: the average of UA scores across all items, for example the S-CVI/ UA [(1 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +…”
MethodInfluentialZamanzadeh, V., Ghahramanian, A., Rassouli, M., Abbaszadeh, A., Alavi-Majd, H., & Nikanfar, A.-R. (2015) · Journal of Caring Sciences · doi:10.15171/jcs.2015.017 · Cited by 1,540 · see citing works
Metrics for explainable AI: challenges and prospects
Hoffman, R. R., Mueller, S. T., Klein, G., & Litman, J. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.04608 · Cited by 518 · see citing works
Teachers' AI-TPACK: exploring the relationship between knowledge elements
Ning, Y., Zhang, C., Xu, B., Zhou, Y., & Wijaya, T. T. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16030978 · Cited by 330 · see citing works
Fatigue in aviation: A systematic review of the literature
Bendak, S., & Rashid, H. S. J. (2020) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102928 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Reliability and validity study of the Turkish version of cyberchondria severity scale
Uzun, S. U., & Zencir, M. (2021) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-018-0001-x · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Ergin, E., Karaarslan, D., Şahan, S., & Çınar Yücel, Ş. (2022) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13646 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Validation of the Patient Advocacy Engagement Scale for Health Professionals
Jansson, B. S., Nyamathi, A., Duan, L., Kaplan, C., Heidemann, G., & Ananias, D. (2015) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.21638 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Valagussa, G., Purpura, G., Nale, A., Pirovano, R., Mazzucchelli, M., Grossi, E., & Perin, C. (2022) · Children · doi:10.3390/children9091336 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Zehirlioglu, L., Erunal, M., Akyol, M. A., Mert, H., Hatipoglu, N. S., & Kucukguclu, O. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience Nursing · doi:10.1097/jnn.0000000000000433 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Bae, J.-S., Ko, K.-M., & Park, H.-J. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18168050 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Mahy, T., & Li, H. (2026) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2623216 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Ağadayı, E., & Onan, A. (2026) · Surgical Innovation · doi:10.1177/15533506251374837
- Authors
- Davis, L. L.
- Corresponding author
- Davis, Linda Lindsey
- Venue
- Applied Nursing Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 194-197
- ISSN
- 0897-1897 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2144951642
- Cited by
- 2,364
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 297 · 2025: 400 · 2024: 322 · 2023: 304 · 2022: 223 · 2021: 204 · 2020: 138 · 2019: 110 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 57 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 4.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Applied Nursing Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- expert panel review, instrument development, content validity, data collection tools, test item revision, pilot testing, reviewer selection, nursing research instruments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
