Mecca, Tatiana Pontrelli; Dias, Natália Martins; Oliveira, Patrícia Vieira de; Muniz, Monalisa

doi:10.1590/1413-82712018230301

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Artigos • Psico-USF 23 (3) • July 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712018230301 copy

Theory of Mind Test for Children: Content Validity

Teste de Teoria da Mente para Crianças: Validade de Conteúdo

Test de Teoría de la Mente para Niños: Validez de Contenido

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

In the national context, there is a lack of instruments to evaluate Theory of Mind, especially with studies of their psychometric properties. This study aimed to investigate content validity evidence for the Theory of Mind Test for Children - TMEC. The development steps, analysis by expert judges and verification of the applicability of the instrument in children aged between 4 and 6 years are described. The TMEC was organized into 4 subtests, following the tasks model described in the literature. Next, 5 judges investigated the clarity of the instructions, the registration form and the score, the level of difficulty of the items and the need for changes. Items highlighted by the judges were reformulated, following the criterion of at least 80% agreement. The applicability of the instrument in a group of six preschool children was verified, which indicated the need to reword a few items for better understanding of the applicator and the child.

Keywords:
Social cognition; psychological assessment; preschool children

		Agreement of the judges in relation to each e valuation criterion for the TMEC items (%) *
		Subtest 1
Main criteria	Score	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Relevant for children aged from 4 to 6 years?	0
	1
	2	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Is the application description clear?	0			33.4	33.4
	1
	2	100	100	66.6	66.6	100	100	100	100	100
Is the description for the allocation of points clear?	0
	1
	2	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Are the instructions for the child clear and concise?	0
	1	66.6
	2	33.4	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Is there a need for a clue for the child in the questions scored?	0	100	100	100	100	100	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6
	1						33.4		33.4	33.4
	2							33.4
Is there consistency between the type of task and the ability it intends to evaluate?	0
	1
	2	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Is the ability to be evaluated well represented in the item?	0
	1
	2	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
On a scale of 0 to 10, how difficult is the item?	M	1.67	1.67	3	3	3.34	3.67	4	4.67	4.34

		Agreement of the judges in relation to each evaluation criterion for the TMEC items (%) *
		Subtest 2
Main criteria	Score	1	2	3	4	5
Relevant for children aged from 4 to 6 years?	0
	1
	2	100	100	100	100	100
Is the application description clear?	0
	1		33.4
	2	100	66.6	100	100	100
Is the description for the allocation of points clear?	0
	1	33.4
	2	66.6	100	100	100	100
Are the instructions for the child clear and concise?	0
	1	33.4	33.4
	2	66.6	66.6	100	100	100
Is there a need for a clue for the child in the questions scored?	0	100		100	100	100
	1		33.4
	2		66.6
Is there consistency between the type of task and the ability it intends to evaluate?	0
	1	33.4
	2	66.6	100	100	100	100
Is the ability to be evaluated well represented in the item?	0
	1	33.4
	2	66.6	100	100	100	100
On a scale of 0 to 10, how difficult is the item?	M	3	2.5	3.34	4.34	4.34

		Agreement of the judges in relation to each evaluation criterion for the TMEC items (%) *
		Subtest 3
Main criteria	Score	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Relevant for children aged from 4 to 6 years?	0
	1
	2	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Is the application description clear?	0
	1								33.4
	2	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	66.6	100
Is the description for the allocation of points clear?	0						33.4
	1	66.6	33.4
	2	33.4	66.6	100	100	100	66.6	100	100	100
Are the instructions for the child clear and concise?	0
	1		33.4				33.4	33.4
	2	100	66.6	100	100	100	66.6	33.4	100	100
Is there a need for a clue for the child in the questions scored?	0		100	100	100	100				100
	1	33.4					33.4	33.4	33.4
	2	66.6					66.6	66.6	66.6
Is there consistency between the type of task and the ability it intends to evaluate?	0
	1
	2	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
Is the ability to be evaluated well represented in the item?	0
	1
	2	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
On a scale of 0 to 10, how difficult is the item?	M	3.34	5.34	3	3.34	3.34	5	5.34	5.34	6

		Agreement of the judges in relation to each evaluation criterion for the TMEC items (%) *
		Subtest 4
Main criteria	Score	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Relevant for children aged from 4 to 6 years?	0
	1	33.4				33.4
	2	66.6	100	100	100	66.6	100	100
Is the application description clear?	0
	1	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4
	2	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6
Is the description for the allocation of points clear?	0	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4
	1						33.4	33.4
	2	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	33.4	33.4
Is the story/vignette clear (succinct and easy to understand) for a child?	0
	1	33.4	33.4			33.4
	2	66.6	66.6	100	100	66.6	100	100
Are the questions clear (succinct and easy to understand) for a child?	0
	1	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4	66.6	33.4
	2	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	33.4	66.6
Is there consistency between the type of task and the ability it intends to evaluate?	0
	1					33.4
	2	100	100	100	100	66.6	100	100
Is the ability to be evaluated well represented in the item?	0
	1					33.4
	2	100	100	100	100	66.6	100	100
Is the implied content of the item clear in the vignette?	0
	1		33.4	33.4	33.4	33.4
	2	100	66.6	66.6	66.6	66.6	100	100

Subtest 4 - Theory of Mind from complex situations and emotions.
Juliana got a teddy bear from her cousin at Christmas. A few days later, they were playing and Juliana’s cousin inadvertently lost the bear. Juliana told her cousin: “Its alright, he was very ugly and I did not even like him. Someone gave it to me for Christmas”.
Comprehension of reality question: What did Juliana’s cousin give her at Christmas?
Comprehension of mental state question: In the story, was it better for Juliana not to have said that the teddy bear was ugly and that she did not like it? Why?

Universidade de São Francisco, Programa de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Psicologia R. Waldemar César da Silveira, 105, Vl. Cura D'Ars (SWIFT), Campinas - São Paulo, CEP 13045-510, Telefone: (19)3779-3771 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistapsico@usf.edu.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Contato com as autoras: Profa. Dra. Tatiana Pontrelli Mecca Rua Franz Voegeli, n.300, Bloco Prata, 1º Subsolo. Secretaria de Pós-Graduação em Psicologia Educacional Osasco-SP, Brasil CEP: 06020-190