Leonie N C Visser1, Marij A Hillen2, Mathilde G E Verdam3, Nadine Bol4, Hanneke C J M de Haes2, Ellen M A Smets2. 1. Department of Medical Psychology-Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: N.C.Visser@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Medical Psychology-Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Medical Psychology-Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Amsterdam School of Communication Research/ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In health communication research using video vignettes, it is important to assess viewers' engagement. Engagement scores can indicate ecological validity of the design, and help distinguish between different engagement types. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate a scale assessing viewers' engagement with video vignettes. METHODS: Based on an existing question set, the 15-item, five-dimensional Video Engagement Scale (VES) was developed. The VES was validated in two video-vignettes studies to investigate patient-physician communication. In addition to engagement, we assessed its presumed correlates, e.g., perceived realism of the video and identification with the patient. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were adequate in both studies (N=181 and N=228). Positive correlations between the VES and perceived realism of the video, credibility of and identification with the patient suggested good content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested a four-dimensional model fit, largely resembling our hypothesized model. CONCLUSIONS: The VES reliably and validly measures viewers' engagement in health communication research using video vignettes. It can be employed to assess ecological validity of this design. Further testing of the scale is needed to more solidly establish its dimensionality. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend that researchers use the VES, to ensure ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies.
OBJECTIVES: In health communication research using video vignettes, it is important to assess viewers' engagement. Engagement scores can indicate ecological validity of the design, and help distinguish between different engagement types. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate a scale assessing viewers' engagement with video vignettes. METHODS: Based on an existing question set, the 15-item, five-dimensional Video Engagement Scale (VES) was developed. The VES was validated in two video-vignettes studies to investigate patient-physician communication. In addition to engagement, we assessed its presumed correlates, e.g., perceived realism of the video and identification with the patient. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were adequate in both studies (N=181 and N=228). Positive correlations between the VES and perceived realism of the video, credibility of and identification with the patient suggested good content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested a four-dimensional model fit, largely resembling our hypothesized model. CONCLUSIONS: The VES reliably and validly measures viewers' engagement in health communication research using video vignettes. It can be employed to assess ecological validity of this design. Further testing of the scale is needed to more solidly establish its dimensionality. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend that researchers use the VES, to ensure ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies.
Authors: Niki M Medendorp; Marij A Hillen; Leonie N C Visser; Cora M Aalfs; Floor A M Duijkers; Klaartje van Engelen; Margreet G E M Ausems; Senno Verhoef; Anne M Stiggelbout; Ellen M A Smets Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 5.351
Authors: Leonie N C Visser; Nadine Bol; Marij A Hillen; Mathilde G E Verdam; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Julia C M van Weert; Ellen M A Smets Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Nida Gizem Yılmaz; Julia C M Van Weert; Ellen Peters; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Annemarie Becker; Suresh Senan; Chris Dickhoff; Daniëlle R M Timmermans; Olga C Damman Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Franziska Kühne; Henriette Fauth; Destina S Ay-Bryson; Leonie N C Visser; Florian Weck Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Arwen H Pieterse; Kim Brandes; Jessica de Graaf; Joyce E de Boer; Nanon H M Labrie; Anouk Knops; Cornelia F Allaart; Johanna E A Portielje; Willem Jan W Bos; Anne M Stiggelbout Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Nida Gizem Yılmaz; Danielle R M Timmermans; Johanneke Portielje; Julia C M Van Weert; Olga C Damman Journal: Health Expect Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 3.318