Validation of the RAISE (Readiness Assessment of Independence for Specialty Encounters) Tool: Provider-Based Transition Evaluation

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to establish content validity of a developmentally based assessment tool of readiness for medical independence for specialty providers.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The validation process used expert panel evaluation to assess the items believed to measure the desired content in the nine age-based scales within the RAISE (Readiness Assessment of Independence for Specialty Encounters) tool. Experts in child development and transition rated items on relevance, clarity and developmental appropriateness via electronic survey. Statistical analyses included calculation of interrater agreement (IRA), content validity indices (CVIs), and factorial validity indices (FVI).

RESULTS

A total of 135 items were rated by 36 experts. Mean I-CVIs for 123 items across nine developmental scales met criteria for retention, ranging from 0.76 (threshold) to 1.00 (excellent). Mean I-CVIs for all 25 items across the five psychosocial stressor scales met criteria for retention, ranging from 0.92 to 1.00 (excellent).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the current content validation study suggest that items on the revised RAISE tool are relevant, clear, and developmentally-appropriate as rated by experts in the fields of child development and transition. The tool, consisting of age based scales (ages birth-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-11, 12-13, 14-15, 16-17, 18-21), is shown to have content validity of the retained items meeting criteria.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

With content validity of the RAISE tool established by experts, this developmentally based assessment tool can be integrated into practice to assist providers in educating patients around skills of medical independence which could improve transition outcomes.

Do the opinions of pediatricians influence their recommendations on complementary feeding? Preliminary results

Complementary feeding practices are debated among pediatricians, primarily regarding whether nutritional needs or developmental readiness should be prioritized in recommendations for starting complementary feeding. The aim of the present study was to analyze the timing of the start of complementary feeding and the related motivations with an 8-item online survey administered to active members of the Italian Society of Primary Care Pediatricians. The participation rate was 43.3% (350 of 808), and 213 (60.9%) and 137 (39.1%) of the participants chose items related to developmental readiness and nutritional needs, respectively, as the criteria for starting complementary feeding. Approximately 74% of the participants reported that they recommended starting complementary feeding between 5 and 6 months of age, 17% recommended starting before 5 months, and 8% recommended starting after 6 months. Predefined schemes were proposed by 38% of the participants, and a responsive feeding modality was proposed by 13%, while the majority (49%) recommended both modalities depending on family characteristics. Regarding recommendations based on nutritional needs, 89% of pediatricians reported providing indications concerning the quantity of meat consumed during the first year of life, and 91% reported recommending introducing added salt only after 12 months of age. Compared with pediatricians who emphasized developmental readiness, those who prioritized nutritional needs suggested earlier complementary feeding start and a higher use of predefined schemes and were more likely to make recommendations regarding meat quantity and added salt (p < 0.0001).Conclusions: Pediatricians who used a developmental readiness criterion for starting complementary feeding may less frequently provide nutritional advice to parents, even if a trend to harmonize the different positions regarding complementary feeding start time is emerging.What is Known:• Pediatricians make suggestions for introducing complementary feeding based on scientific evidence, local traditions, and personal beliefs.• Either infants' nutritional needs or their developmental readiness currently is used as determinant for the timing of complementary feeding.What is New:• More than 60% of Italian pediatricians consider developmental readiness a priority for introducing complementary feeding.• Pediatricians following the criterion of developmental readiness may less frequently give detailed nutritional advice.