An analytical tool for the appraisal of Educational Products related to construction research

Abstract

The process of conceiving an Educational Product (EP) in Professional Postgraduate Programs in the area of Education requires, at one of its stages, the appraisal of related products. Although the analysis of related research is well explored in books on scientific methodology, it is not common to find guidance in the literature on how to promote the analysis of EPs. This article aims to present an analytical tool to assist graduate students in analyzing research-related EPs, in understanding existing gaps, and in identifying essential characteristics and criteria that can contribute distinctively to the conception of their own EPs. Bibliographic and documentary research was adopted as the methodological path. The result is an analytical tool that presents five categories of analysis for educational products: target audience, conceptual layer, communicational layer, didactic-pedagogical layer, and aesthetic and functional layer. In addition, a set of guidelines for preliminary analyses is presented to assist in the interpretation of the results. Given the result, the analytical tool presents the possibility of identifying improvements and modifications in the researcher's own EP, directing the generation of prototypes based on the items described, recording the analysis, and using the data to justify choices and decisions in the educational product.

Keywords: product evaluation; evaluation instrument; applied research.

Una herramienta analítica para la valoración de Productos Educativos relacionados con investigaciones en construcción

Resumen

El proceso de concepción de un Producto Educativo (PE), en Programas de Posgrado Profesionales del Área de la Educación, requiere en una de sus etapas la valoración de productos relacionados. Aunque el análisis de investigaciones relacionadas está bien explorado en libros de metodología científica, no es común identificar en la literatura orientaciones sobre cómo promover el análisis de PE. Este artículo tiene como objetivo presentar una herramienta analítica para ayudar a los posgraduados en el análisis de PE relacionados con la investigación, en la comprensión de las lagunas existentes, y en la identificación de características y criterios esenciales que pueden contribuir de forma distintiva a la concepción de sus propios PE. Se adoptó la investigación bibliográfica y documental como camino metodológico. El resultado es una herramienta analítica que presenta cinco categorías de análisis para productos educativos: público objetivo, capa conceptual, capa comunicacional, capa didáctico-pedagógica y capa estético y funcional. Además, se presenta un conjunto de orientaciones para análisis previos para ayudar en la interpretación de los resultados. Frente al resultado, la herramienta analítica presenta la posibilidad de identificar mejoras y modificaciones en el propio PE del investigador, dirigir la generación de prototipos basados en los ítems descritos, registrar el análisis y utilizar los datos para justificar elecciones y decisiones en el producto educativo.

Palabras clave: evaluación de productos; instrumento de evaluación; investigación aplicada.

Introduction

Scientific research conducted within a Professional Graduate Program (PPG) in the field of Education yields two distinct yet interconnected outcomes: the dissertation/thesis and an educational product. The dissertation/thesis "must be a reflection on the development and application of the educational product, supported by the chosen theoretical-methodological framework" (Brasil, 2019, p. 15).

Mendonça et al. (2022, p. 3) argue that the dissertation/thesis and its corresponding educational product relate to the problem space and the solution space, respectively.

In this process, it is essential to consider both the problem space and the solution space. The former pertains to the understanding and formulation of the research question/problem, which emerges from the professional practice field and informs the research objectives and the definition of its theoretical-methodological foundations. The solution space, in turn, encompasses the aspects that lead to a response to this problem (Mendonça et al., 2022, p. 3).

During the initial stages of research development, it is common for graduate students to encounter difficulties in conceptualizing the educational product, often prioritizing the writing of their dissertation or thesis. This, in turn, delays the planning of the educational product. According to Mendonça et al. (2022), this challenge may arise because graduate students dedicate significant time to coursework and adapt to modifications in their research projects, such as the (re)definition of the research problem and the comprehension of theoretical and methodological foundations.

In the same vein, Araújo, Farias, and Mendonça (2023) highlight that graduate students tend to dissociate the conception of the educational product from the research process, failing to recognize it as a continuous endeavor. They also struggle to identify the needs of the target audience and to ensure the product's aesthetic quality.

Moreover, it is still common for dissertations and theses to present research-related works (such as articles, theses, and dissertations) while neglecting the discussion of related educational products. One way to address this gap is to encourage the analysis of related works with a specific focus on educational products.

Although the literature provides guidelines on the structure of educational products or materials—addressing aspects such as key dimensions and layers (Kaplún, 2003; Filatro; Cairo, 2016; Moreira, 2010; Mendonça et al., 2022) as well as validation and evaluation checklists for products, learning objects, and similar materials (Sousa; Turrini; Poveda, 2015; Rizzatti et al., 2020; Rocha et al., 2024)—graduate students entering Professional Graduate Programs (PPGs) in the field of Education may face difficulties in applying these guidelines when analyzing other educational products during the construction of their theoretical and methodological framework.

To contribute to the literature on educational products, this study presents an analytical instrument for evaluating such products. The goal is to enable graduate students to qualitatively differentiate educational products and refine their analytical perspective regarding the essential elements that constitute these products. Given that educational products serve as valuable sources of information, they should contribute both to the theoretical framework and the conception of the researcher's educational product.

Theoretical FoundationsTheoretical Foundations

The analysis of educational products (EP) as primary sources assists graduate students in understanding the functionality, structure, and composition of such products within their defined research topic. It also enables them to map existing educational solutions, identify research gaps, and recognize opportunities that may not yet have been explored by other scholars.

To support the development of the analytical instrument, this study adopts the framework proposed by Mendonça et al. (2022), which conceptualizes the design of educational products through a layered structure, organized into the following dimensions: i) Conceptual, ii) Didactic-Pedagogical, iii) Communicational, and iv) Aesthetic and Functional.

The conceptual layer encompasses the theoretical and technical-technological aspects that facilitate the target audience’s understanding of the educational product—its composition, purpose, and underlying knowledge base. This layer should integrate the essential knowledge required to achieve the intended objectives of the product.

The didactic-pedagogical layer guides the educational pathway or learning trajectory, structuring the available information and resources to support the achievement of learning or professional training objectives. This layer focuses on instructional processes and pedagogical strategies embedded within the product.

The communicational layer pertains to how the educational product interacts with its target audience, which may include teachers, teacher educators, students, and educational administrators. As stated by Mendonça et al. (2022, p. 10), "this layer represents the 'voice' of the product, which engages with the reader and facilitates the learning process."

The aesthetic and functional layer aims to enhance the visual experience by presenting information in a clear and engaging manner. Additionally, it addresses usability by ensuring accessibility and ease of use.

While each layer is informed by research data, they interact dynamically throughout the product’s development in an iterative, interactive, and incremental process (Figure 1).

It is interactive because it requires observing the context surrounding the problem and engaging with the individuals involved. It is iterative because the solution demands a process of constant refinement, involving repeated cycles of analysis and revision to deepen the understanding of the problem and develop its solution. It is incremental since new information can be incorporated over time (Farias, 2019, p. 15).

Figure 1 – The layers that constitute an educational product.

Figure 1
– The layers that constitute an educational product

Source: Mendonça et al. (2022).

Although Mendonça et al. (2022) do not provide specific guidelines on how to analyze educational products (EP) about their layers, several authors—including Kaplún (2003), Moreira (2010), Filatro and Cairo (2016), Filatro (2018), Leite (2019), Souza, Moreira, and Borges (2020), and Brito Junior, Aguiar, and Moura (2021)—discuss elements that align with these layers and contribute to the development of the analytical instrument presented in this study. Additionally, Sousa, Turrini, and Poveda (2015) offer a significant contribution by translating the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) from English to Portuguese, a 30-item instrument designed to evaluate the comprehensibility of educational materials.

Kaplún (2003) identifies three core axes that underpin educational materials, which can also be applied to educational products: the communicational, pedagogical, and conceptual axes. In these, the author emphasizes the importance of understanding the target audience, their prior knowledge, and experiences. He argues that the pedagogical axis is the central organizing element of educational material, guiding the selection of key ideas to be presented and ensuring that communication efforts avoid an overaccumulation of "technically accurate but pedagogically ineffective and overly complex information" (Kaplún, 2003, p. 58).

Moreira (2010) categorizes educational materials into three dimensions: semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic. The semantic dimension pertains to the content, information, and messages conveyed—essentially, "what the medium communicates." The syntactic dimension concerns "how the message is presented," including how information is structured, organized, and symbolized. The pragmatic dimension relates to the use of the medium, which the author refers to as a teaching tool.

Filatro and Cairo (2016) identify five key dimensions for the development of educational content: pedagogical, techno-scientific, communicational, technological, and organizational. The organizational dimension pertains to models, processes, and resources applied over time for educational content production in alignment with institutional policies. The techno-scientific dimension is linked to curriculum organization, representing what is deemed essential for achieving learning objectives. The pedagogical dimension addresses epistemological foundations and approaches to teaching and learning in the context of content production. The communicational dimension relates to the didactic dialogue established between the educator and the learner, aiming to ensure communication quality that enhances the learning experience. Lastly, the technological dimension concerns the selection of technologies that facilitate the communicational process and enable learning activities.

Filatro (2018) takes a pragmatic approach, providing guidelines for developing content, particularly for distance education, some of which can also be applied to educational products. The author offers recommendations such as keeping introductions to didactic texts or units brief and engaging, reserving technical illustrations for sections that specifically address the topic, ensuring that conclusions mirror introductions, and incorporating summaries that emphasize key points. Additional guidance is provided on visual identity, supporting materials, the use of images, multimedia scripting, and audience considerations.

Leite (2019) structures her analysis of educational materials around several axes, including aesthetics and organization, chapter structure, writing style, content, didactic proposals, and critical engagement. For each axis, she poses guiding questions that help researchers critically reflect on their educational products.

Souza, Moreira, and Borges (2020) developed an instrument for evaluating the visual design of health education technology, which includes ten items assessing illustrations, colors, and figures used in educational technologies.

Brito Junior, Aguiar, and Moura (2021) propose a taxonomy for evaluating digital learning resources, organized into four dimensions: pedagogical quality, usability, software quality, and hybrid quality. Each dimension comprises categories (17 in total) and criteria (49 in total) for analyzing digital learning objects. For example, within the pedagogical quality dimension, the content complexity criterion evaluates the level of complexity in learning activities, while the foundations and pedagogical objectives category assesses the identification of learning objectives, and the prior knowledge category examines whether learners’ previous knowledge is considered.

The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), translated into Portuguese by Sousa, Turrini, and Poveda (2015) as Avaliação de Adequação de Materiais, is an instrument used to assess the appropriateness of educational materials for patients. It evaluates six categories: content, language, organization, layout and typography, illustrations, and learning and motivation. Each category includes a set of items rated on a scale from zero to two, ultimately classifying materials as excellent, adequate, or inadequate based on their scores.

This study highlights the need to include an additional analytical category: the target audience. While not considered a distinct layer of an educational product, understanding the characteristics, knowledge, and context of the intended audience is crucial for effective product analysis, as emphasized by Kaplún (2003), Moreira (2010), Filatro and Cairo (2016), Filatro (2018), and Aguiar and Moura (2021).

To address this consideration, an educational product may be designed for direct use by the target audience—allowing for autonomous adoption—or it may require mediation by an instructor or facilitator. Thus, the term target audience refers to those who directly benefit from the product.

For example, an educational product designed as a didactic sequence for first-year high school students learning physics would require mediation by a teacher who receives guidance on how to implement the sequence in the classroom. In this case, the target audience consists of first-year high school students, as they are the direct beneficiaries, whereas the teacher, despite utilizing the product, serves as a mediator rather than a direct recipient.

If the product is intended for teacher training, it is essential to determine whether it will be used autonomously (i.e., a teacher using the product for self-study) or whether a teacher educator will facilitate its implementation. In both cases, the target audience consists of teachers, but in the latter scenario, mediation is required.

The definition of the target audience is informed by research data, taking into account the identified problem and the context in which the educational product will be applied. This consideration significantly influences writing style, instructional design, content selection, and visual language, all of which are integral components of an educational product's layers.

Table 1 summarizes the relationships between the cited authors and the layers identified by Mendonça et al. (2022), highlighting their contributions to the development of the analytical instrument presented in this study.

Quadro 1- Theoretical foundations of the analytical instrument.

Source: Prepared by the authors (2024).

An important point is that the analytical instrument considers only the typology of didactic/instructional materials. Despite this limitation, the instrument remains relevant given the significant number of educational products in this category compared to others. Table 1 presents data from the Sucupira platform (2024) over the past five years, considering only the typologies identified by Rizzatti et al. (2020).

Table 1 – Number of educational products over the past five years.

Source: Sucupira (2024).

The didactic/instructional material category includes teaching proposals, didactic sequences, intervention plans, and workshop guides; textual materials such as manuals, guides, support texts, articles in technical or outreach journals, textbooks, supplementary educational books, comic books, and similar resources; educational media, including videos, simulations, animations, video lessons, virtual experiments, and audio materials; learning objects; learning environments; websites and blogs; tabletop or digital educational games, among others.

The next section presents the analytical instrument along with guidelines to assist graduate students in conducting their analysis.

Analytical Instrument for Evaluating Educational Products

The analytical instrument for educational products is theoretically grounded in the contributions of the authors referenced in Table 1, where elements corresponding to the layers described by Mendonça et al. (2022) were identified.

The instrument is organized into five categories: target audience, conceptual layer, didactic-pedagogical layer, communicational layer, and aesthetic-functional layer, comprising a total of 22 questions distributed across these categories. Given the nature of some products within the "didactic/instructional materials" category—such as videos, simulations, animations, video lessons, virtual experiments, and audio materials; learning objects; learning environments; websites and blogs; and tabletop or digital educational games—the instrument may not always be directly applicable.

For each question in the instrument, preliminary guidelines are suggested to assist graduate students in interpreting the criteria. These guidelines also help students justify their evaluations when writing their dissertation or thesis, particularly when a product does not meet a given criterion. The analysis of responses is not restrictive or prescriptive, as various factors may influence the assessment, including the type of product, its application context, the researcher’s available resources, technical knowledge, and more.

For scoring each question, the following scale is recommended 2 to Excellent; 1 to Adequate; 0 to Inadequate; N/A to Not applicable to the educational product. The maximum possible score is 44 points (100%), indicating an "excellent" rating across all questions. To ensure accurate calculation, the formula outlined in Table 2 should be followed. This formula is adapted from the study by Souza, Turrini, and Poveda (2015) on the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM).

Table 2 – Formula used in the analytical instrument.

Source: Souza, Turrini, Poveda (2015).

Caption:

Tt = Total score

Pmax = Maximum total score = 44 (fixed value)

N = Number of "Not Applicable" (N/A) responses × 2 = ___

Pt = Adjusted maximum total score = (Pmax - N)

Interpretation of score adequacy (Excellent, Adequate, Not Acceptable):

0 – 59%: Not Acceptable – The product does not meet the minimum requirements for proper application / 60% – 79%: Adequate – The product meets the minimum requirements for proper application but has room for improvement / 80% – 100%: Excellent – The product is fully suitable for application.

Note: If the educational product scores zero in any category, it is automatically considered unsuitable for application.

Example:

A product received a total score of 17 points in the analytical instrument, with 3 questions marked as "Not Applicable." Therefore, Tt = 17, N = 3 (Number of "Not Applicable" responses) × 2 = 6. Therefore, Pt = 44 (fixed value) - 6 = 38. To calculate the score percentage, apply the formula Score Percentage = (17 / 38) × 100 = 44%. Score interpretation: Not Acceptable

To facilitate understanding, the instrument will be presented by category, along with analysis guidelines. To download the complete instrument and its application, please access the provided link.

Target Audience Category. This category includes questions that assess whether the target audience is clearly identified in the educational product, whether the need for a mediator is specified, whether clear instructions for implementation are provided, whether prior knowledge is required for use, and whether the content aligns with the expected knowledge level of the target audience. Failure to meet these criteria may indicate issues in defining the target audience, potentially leading to inadequate content and guidance, which could compromise learning outcomes. The detailed breakdown is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 – Analytical instrument for educational products – Target Audience Category.

Source: Prepared by the authors (2024).

Conceptual Layer Category. This category includes questions related to the theoretical foundations and their application throughout the product. The absence of these foundations or their misalignment with other components of the product compromises its overall objective, its implementation, and the teaching-learning process. The detailed breakdown is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 – Analytical instrument for educational products – Conceptual Layer Category.

Source: Prepared by the authors (2024).

Didactic-Pedagogical Category. This category addresses issues related to the pathway that leads the student to learning, the instructions/guidelines presented, the internal articulation of the content, and its relationship with conceptual foundations. The inadequacy of the items may indicate a disorganization of the educational program, rendering it incomprehensible to the target audience and impacting their learning. Table 5 presents a detailed description of this category in the instrument.

Table 5 – Analytical Instrument for Educational Products – Category: Didactic-Pedagogical Layer.

Source: Produced by the authors

Communication layer. The questions are related to the manner in which information is presented in the educational product (PE), including its organization, spelling, clarity, conciseness, coherence, and logic among the presented topics. The absence of these elements compromises the understanding of the product, and its credibility, and may generate frustration and low adherence from the target audience. Table 6 presents a detailed description of the instrument pertaining to the communicational layer.

Table 6 – Analytical Instrument for Educational Products – Category: Communicational Layer.

Source: Produced by the authors (2024)

Aesthetic and Functional Layer Category. The questions relate to the adequate use of images, colors, typography, the organization of the composition between text and images of the product and its artifacts, as well as access by the target audience to the PE. The inadequacy of these elements can cause visual discomfort, and difficulty in reading and understanding the information, which compromises learning and adherence from the target audience. Table 7 presents the detailing of the communicational layer in the analytical instrument.

Table 7 – Analytical Instrument for Educational Products – Category: Aesthetic and Functional Layer.

Source: Produced by the authors (2024)

The application of the analytical instrument contributes not only to the analysis of other products by postgraduate students but also to the practice of postgraduate instructors. Additionally, it reveals aspects that are not easily perceived by novice postgraduate students.

How to use the analytical instrument and what it can reveal

The use of the instrument is recommended for the product analysis phase during the research´s data collection. However, other possibilities benefit the learning of postgraduate students who are beginning to understand educational products. Below are some highlighted applications of the proposal.

As an exercise to develop the postgraduate student's perspective. The analysis of products primarily benefits novice students in master's or professional doctoral programs, or doctoral candidates who have completed academic master's degrees, by assisting them in training to identify the minimal elements of the layers that compose the educational product (PE). This provides a reflective process on what constitutes an educational product, its purpose, and its composition through its layers.

To qualify and differentiate educational products. The instrument provides a means to qualitatively evaluate products based on established criteria. This allows for the ranking of products with higher scores and establishing relationships with one's own research.

Guidelines for the conception of the educational product. Considering the developed categories and questions, the researcher can adopt the instrument as a parameter to guide the conception of their own product, ensuring at least the application of the layers.

Assistance for postgraduate instructors. It helps instructors use it in their courses as an analysis exercise or in discussions with research groups during the guidance of dissertations or theses, thereby guiding postgraduate students to consider elements that should be mapped during the development of their theoretical framework.

The analytical instrument considers five categories based on the research of Mendonça et al. (2022). For the operational structuring of the categories, foundations were sought in Kaplún (2003), Moreira (2010), Sousa, Turrini, and Poveda (2015), Filatro and Cairo (2016), Filatro (2018), Leite (2019), Souza, Moreira, and Borges (2020), Brito Junior, Aguiar, and Moura (2021). These authors provide indications that can be applied to the context of educational products (see Table 1) such as the development of the analytical instrument or to support other research.

This proposal aims to assist postgraduate students in their research under construction and enhances the researcher's understanding of the connection between research and the educational product. However, adaptations may be made according to the type of product and/or other issues pertinent to the researcher in the analysis of products.

Final Considerations

A postgraduate student beginning their studies in a master's or doctoral program has a range of activities to complete. The initial focus on coursework and the structuring of their research project is a natural process; however, in a Professional Program in the field of Education, the initiation of the educational product tends to be postponed. This article presents an analytical instrument for educational products with the objective of contributing to postgraduate students in their ongoing research.

The analytical instrument for educational products (PE) assists in the first phase of research by enabling the researcher to: (1) structurally analyze the characteristics and criteria of educational products, facilitating the comparison of the analyzed PEs; (2) present a view of the minimal elements related to the layers that compose the PEs and align them with the research objectives; (3) identify gaps, improvements, and modifications in their own PE by analyzing other products; (4) direct the generation of prototypes based on the described items and their monitoring, avoiding deviations and reducing the need for late revisions and corrections; (5) record the analysis and utilize the data to justify choices and decisions, which aids in communication with advisors and examination boards.

Among the limitations, the instrument is restricted to the typology of didactic/instructional materials; even though it provides guidelines for analyzing the questions, it is necessary for the postgraduate student to have a minimum knowledge of the layers present in the article by Mendonça et al. (2022). Additionally, although it is an instrument capable of qualitatively evaluating PEs, the researcher needs to consider the results and the impact on the product of items with low scores.

Acknowledgments

This research was developed with the support of the Government of the State of Amazonas through the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas, with the granting of a scholarship.

References

BRASIL. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Documento de Área – Ensino. Brasília, 2019. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/ENSINO.pdf. Acesso em: 10 out. 2024.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Plataforma Sucupira. Disponível em: https://sucupira-v2.capes.gov.br/painel. Acesso em: 16 out. 2024.

FARIAS, M. S. F.; MENDONÇA, A. P. Design Thinking como percurso metodológico para construção de produto educacional: uma experiência no mestrado profissional na área de ensino. Educitec-Revista de Estudos e Pesquisas sobre Ensino Tecnológico, Manaus, v. 7, e103621-e103621, 2021.

FILATRO, A. Como preparar conteúdos para EAD. São Paulo: Saraiva Educação SA, 2018.

FILATRO, A.; CAIRO, S. Produção de Conteúdos Educacionais. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2016.

BRITO JUNIOR, O. de O.; AGUIAR, Y. P. C.; DE MOURA, H. P. Taxonomia para Avaliação de Recursos Digitais de Aprendizagem–TARDA–Versão 2.0. Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação, [S. l.], n. 42, p. 120-135, 2021. Disponível em: https://scielo.pt/pdf/rist/n42/1646-9895-rist-42-120.pdf Acesso em: 02 out. 2024

KAPLÚN, G. Material Educativo: a experiência do aprendizado. Comunicação e Educação, São Paulo, v. 27, p. 46-60, 2003.

LEITE, P. de S. C. Proposta de avaliação coletiva de materiais educativos em mestrados profissionais na área de ensino. Campo Abierto,[S. l.], v. 38, n. 2, p. 185-198, 2019. Disponível em: https://dehesa.unex.es/bitstream/10662/10066/1/0213-9529_38_2_185.pdf. Acesso em: 02 out. 2024

MENDONÇA, A. P. et al. O que contém e o que está contido em um Processo/Produto Educacional?: Reflexões sobre um conjunto de ações demandadas para Programas de Pós-Graduação na Área de Ensino. Educitec-Revista de Estudos e Pesquisas sobre Ensino Tecnológico, Manaus, v. 8, p. e211422-e211422, 2022.

MOREIRA, M. A. Los medios de enseñanza: conceptualización y tipología. Web de Tecnología Educativa. Universidad La Laguna, 2010. Disponível em: https://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1K3790S11-6Y1FXR-TVJ/medios%20de%20ense%C3%B1anza_area.pdf. Acesso em: 20 set. 2024

RIZZATTI, I. M. et al. Os produtos e processos educacionais dos programas de pós-graduação profissionais: proposições de um grupo de colaboradores. ACTIO: docência em ciências, [S. l.], v. 5, n. 2, p. 1-17, 2020. Disponível em: https://periodicos.utfpr.edu.br/actio/article/view/12657. Acesso em: 15 set. 2024

ROCHA, S. L. et.al. Validação de produtos educacionais em ensino em saúde. 2021. Disponível em: https://educapes.capes.gov.br/bitstream/capes/739793/5/VALIDA%C3%87%C3%83O%20DE%20PRODUTOS%20EDUCACIONAIS.pdf. Acesso em: 25 out. 2024

SOUZA, A. C. C. de; MOREIRA, T. M. M.; BORGES, J. W. P. Desenvolvimento de instrumento para validar aparência de tecnologia educacional em saúde. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, [S. l.], v. 73, e20190559, 2020. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/reben/a/j4nNFSCVRjLFkTfXYBkLWgk/?format=pdf&lang=pt. Acesso em: 16 out. 2024.

SOUZA, C. S.; TURRINI, R. N. T.; POVEDA, V. de B. Tradução e adaptação do instrumento “suitability assessment of materials” (SAM) para o português. Revista de Enfermagem UFPE on Line, Recife, v. 9, n. 5, p. 7854-7861, 2015. Disponível em: https://repositorio.usp.br/item/002721301. Acesso em: 16 out. 2024.