Fast Validity: Qualitative Analysis of Migrant Health Tools

Evidano is an AI-powered qualitative data analysis platform that speeds multilingual transcription, thematic coding, and cross-segment synthesis. Tunisia’s MHCP‑t validation protocol (published Jul 8, 2026) demonstrates a pragmatic mixed-methods workflow that balances item-level psychometrics and qualitative feedback to validate migrant health tools. The protocol targets sample n=40–50, nested focus groups ≈10–15, and estimates respondent burden at ≈5 hours.

• Use both item-level (I‑CVI thresholds) and tool-level assessments to test relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility.
• Plan for staged completion and incentives, the protocol estimates ~5 hours per respondent spread across stages.
• Combine numeric cutoffs (e.g., I‑CVI ≥0.78; S‑CVI/Ave ≥0.90) with thematic feedback before dropping or revising items.

The findings snapshot summarizes the protocol dates, recruitment targets, sample sizes and analytic tools used.

The MHCP‑t validation protocol evaluates three interlinked survey instruments that map migrant health data sources (Data), national policies (Policy), and service provision (Provision). The study combines structured item-level ratings (relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility) with focus groups to capture practical and contextual issues.

• Item-level validation: applied to MHCP‑t: Provision and key sections of MHCP‑t: Policy using 5-point Likert ratings and I‑CVI thresholds (0.78).
• Tool-level validation: all three tools assessed for overall content validity, feasibility and acceptability with a second questionnaire (4-point Likert/binary items).
• Mixed methods: quantitative psychometrics (I‑CVI, S‑CVI/Ave, Krippendorff’s α) plus thematic analysis of field notes and open responses in NVivo 14.

The approach is pragmatic: train national teams, recruit purposive experts, give a two-week window on RedCap, and combine numeric cutoffs with participant narratives to decide which items to keep, revise or remove.

This checklist gives a compact runbook to mirror the MHCP‑t protocol in one pilot site.

• Day 0: Assemble a working group (policy, data, frontline) and map respondent roles.
• Day 1–3: Translate and adapt the tool and upload to RedCap (or export to Evidano), include a consent page and estimated completion time.
• Days 4–7: Train participants remotely and open a two‑week window for staged completion.
• Days 8–14: Run item-level rating survey and collect open comments, then export CSVs and transcripts.
• Day 15–20: Load materials into Evidano for automated transcription (if needed), thematic coding, I‑CVI helper reports and cross-segment dashboards.
• Day 21–28: Convene one to two focus groups, integrate qualitative themes, and produce a concise policy brief with visuals.

The MHCP‑t validation protocol offers a practical template for turning policy inventories and service mapping into validated, actionable instruments. The mixed-methods design, combining numeric thresholds with participant narratives, ensures both rigor and relevance.

If your team runs similar validations or wants to scale content validity work across languages and sites, combine RedCap-style collection with an AI research platform to remove bottlenecks in transcription, coding and cross-segment synthesis. Explore how Evidano integrates secure transcription, multilingual translation, thematic and cross-segment analyses, and visual exports to turn MHCP‑t style inputs into policy-ready outputs: Try Evidano for free.