Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of consensus among participants

From: Content validation of a mental wellness measuring instrument for adolescents living with HIV: a modified delphi study

Statements relating to the purpose and aim of the instrument

Round 1 (N = 11)

Round 2 (N = 8)

Yes

Suggest changes

Yes

Suggest changes

Is the definition of self-acceptance clearly stated?

7 (64%)

4 (36%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the definition of self-esteem clearly stated?

7 (64%)

4 (36%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the definition of self-efficacy clearly stated?

8 (73%)

3 (27%)

7 (88%)

1 (12%)

Is the definition of adherence self-efficacy clearly stated?

9 (82%)

2 (18%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the definition of resilience clearly stated?

9 (82%)

2 (18%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the definition of coping clearly stated?

8 (73%)

3 (27%)

7 (88%)

1 (12%)

Is the definition of connectedness clearly stated?

9 (82%)

2 (18%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the definition of leisure activities clearly stated?

7 (64%)

4 (36%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the definition of spirituality clearly stated?

8 (73%)

3 (27%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the definition of hope clearly stated?

9 (82%)

2

8 (100%)

0

Is the definition of purpose in life clearly stated?

8 (73%)

3 (27%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the aim of the measure clearly stated?

9 (82%)

2 (18%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the purpose of the instrument clear?

10 (91%)

1 (9%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the type of instrument appropriate?

9 (82%)

2 (18%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the type of item (5-point Likert type) an appropriate choice for the screening instrument?

4 (36%)

7 (64%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the user group clearly defined?

7 (64%)

4 (36%)

8 (100%)

0

Is the target population clearly stated?

10 (91%)

1 (9%)

8 (100%)

0