% Generated by roxygen2: do not edit by hand
% Please edit documentation in R/scvi_ua.R
\name{scvi_ua}
\alias{scvi_ua}
\title{Scale-level Content Validity Index, Universal Agreement method (S-CVI/UA)}
\usage{
scvi_ua(ratings, relevant_threshold = 3, na.rm = FALSE)
}
\arguments{
\item{ratings}{A numeric matrix or data frame of expert ratings (rows =
experts, columns = items) on a relevance scale.}

\item{relevant_threshold}{Integer. Minimum rating considered "relevant".
Defaults to 3.}

\item{na.rm}{Logical. If \code{TRUE}, missing ratings are ignored when checking
universal agreement. Defaults to \code{FALSE}.}
}
\value{
A single numeric value: the proportion of items with universal
agreement.
}
\description{
Computes the Scale-level Content Validity Index using the universal
agreement method, defined as the proportion of items where all experts
rate the item as relevant.
}
\details{
S-CVI/UA is a stricter criterion than S-CVI/Ave and tends to produce lower
values, especially with larger expert panels. Polit and Beck (2006)
recommend reporting both indices together. With small panels of 3-5
experts, S-CVI/UA >= 0.80 is often considered acceptable.
}
\examples{
ratings <- matrix(
  c(4, 4, 3, 4, 4,
    3, 4, 4, 4, 3,
    2, 3, 3, 4, 3,
    1, 2, 3, 2, 3),
  nrow = 5
)
scvi_ua(ratings)

}
\references{
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you
sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations.
\emph{Research in Nursing & Health}, 29(5), 489-497.
\doi{10.1002/nur.20147}
}
\seealso{
\code{\link[=icvi]{icvi()}}, \code{\link[=scvi_ave]{scvi_ave()}}
}
