Sensitivity and specificity of conventional and new face validation in determining the incomprehensible items by older people: Empirical evidence of testing 106 quality‐of‐life items

Background Face validation in psychometric testing of an instrument was used to identify incomprehensible items and hence increase the validity. However, conventional approach checking understandability older people respondents has its shortcomings. A new face asking for “interpretation” from recommended but lacked empirical research that compared these two approaches. This methodological aimed investigate compare sensitivity specificity identifying empirically. Methods purposive sample 15 living three residential care homes (RCHs) Hong Kong evaluate a newly developed 106 covering seven quality-of-life dimensions. The abbreviated Mental Test (Hong version; AMT) as screening tool excluding those with impaired cognition. interview audiotaped, were identified by panel accordingly (served gold standard). socio-demographics described. Understandability (yes/no, method) interpretability (4-point Likert scale, compute Kappa value (representing chance agreement), sensitivity, analysis. Results Fifteen interviewed responded structured regarding interpretability. 61 (57%) obtained 100% positive while only 35 (33%) correct coefficient 0.388 (P < 0.001) agreement between confirmed 32% required revision (i.e., items). false negative rate using up 70.59% both rates low (0%–5.88%). Conclusion evidence indicated encountered high rate. On contrary, because it demonstrated items.