J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2019;16:8. 10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.8.

Development and validation of the Hocus Focus Magic Performance Evaluation Scale for health professions personnel in the United States

• Spencer K
• Yuen HK
• Darwin M
• Jenkins G
• Kirklin K

• KMID: 2447243
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.8

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study was conducted to describe the development and validation of the Hocus Focus Magic Performance Evaluation Scale (HFMPES), which is used to evaluate the competency of health professions personnel in delivering magic tricks as a therapeutic modality.
METHODS
A 2-phase validation process was used. Phase I (content validation) involved 16 magician judges who independently rated the relevance of each of the 5 items in the HFMPES and established the veracity of its content. Phase II evaluated the psychometric properties of the HFMPES. This process involved 2 magicians using the HFMPES to independently evaluate 73 occupational therapy graduate students demonstrating 3 magic tricks.
RESULTS
The HFMPES achieved an excellent scale-content validity index of 0.99. Exploratory factor analysis of the HFMPES scores revealed 1 distinct factor with alpha coefficients ≥0.8 across the 3 magic tricks. The construct validity of the HFMPES scores was further supported by evidence from a known-groups analysis, in which the Mann-Whitney U-test showed significant difference in HFMPES scores between participants with different levels of experience in delivering the 3 magic tricks. The inter-rater reliability coefficients were ≥0.75 across the 3 magic tricks, indicating that the competency of health professions personnel in delivering the 3 magic tricks could be evaluated precisely.
CONCLUSION
Preliminary evidence supported the content and construct validity of the HFMPES, which was found to have good internal consistency and inter-rater reliability in evaluating health professions personnel's competency in delivering magic tricks.

Keyword

Reproducibility of results; Health occupations; Complementary therapies; United States

MeSH Terms

Complementary Therapies
Health Occupations*
Humans
Magic*
Occupational Therapy
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
United States*

Reference

References

1. Green D, Schertz M, Gordon AM, Moore A, Schejter Margalit T, Farquharson Y, Ben Bashat D, Weinstein M, Lin JP, Fattal-Valevski A. A multi-site study of functional outcomes following a themed approach to hand-arm bimanual intensive therapy for children with hemiplegia. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013; 55:527–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12113.

2. Hines A, Bundy AC, Black D, Haertsch M, Wallen M. Upper limb function of children with unilateral cerebral palsy after a magic-themed HABIT: a pre-post-study with 3- and 6-month follow-up. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2019; 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2018.1505802.

3. Stehouwer RC. Using magic to establish rapport and improve motivation in psychotherapy with children: theory, issues, and technique. Psychother Priv Pract. 1983; 1:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1300/j294v01n02_10.

4. Peretz B, Gluck G. Magic trick: a behavioural strategy for the management of strong-willed children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2005; 15:429–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00668.x.

5. Elkin DJ, Pravder HD. Bridging magic and medicine. Lancet. 2018; 391:1254–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30707-4.

6. Lam MT, Lam HR, Chawla L. Application of magic in healthcare: a scoping review. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2017; 26:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2016.11.002.

7. Wiseman R, Watt C. Achieving the impossible: a review of magic-based interventions and their effects on wellbeing. PeerJ. 2018; 6:e6081. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6081.

8. Lyons M, Menolotto AM. Use of magic in psychiatric occupational therapy: rationale, results and recommendations. Aust Occup Ther J. 1990; 37:79–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.1990.tb01238.x.

9. Rissanen O, Pitkanen P, Juvonen A, Kuhn G, Hakkarainen K. Expertise among professional magicians: an interview study. Front Psychol. 2014; 5:1484. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01484.

10. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986; 35:382–385.

11. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.