-
Nursing & Health Sciences Mar 2021This systematic review aimed to critique the process of development and psychometric properties of tools measuring respectful or disrespectful maternity care experienced... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aimed to critique the process of development and psychometric properties of tools measuring respectful or disrespectful maternity care experienced by women during labor and birth in low- and middle-income countries. The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception to February 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Six tools measuring respectful maternity care during the intrapartum period were identified. Measurement error, cross-cultural validity, and responsiveness were not evaluated by any tool developers, while structural validity, internal consistency, and hypothesis testing were the most frequently assessed measurement properties. Interestingly, this review could not identify any measures of disrespectful care even though most included measures focused on disrespect and abuse. No measure was of sufficient quality to determine women's experiences of disrespectful and respectful maternity care in low- and middle-income countries. New valid and reliable measures using rigorous approaches to tool development are required.
Topics: Checklist; Female; Humans; Maternal Health Services; Maternal-Child Nursing; Parturition; Pregnancy; Psychometrics
PubMed: 32677167
DOI: 10.1111/nhs.12756 -
Advances in Health Sciences Education :... Aug 2018Practitioners in health sciences education and assessment regularly use a range of psychometric techniques to analyse data, evaluate models, and make crucial progression...
Practitioners in health sciences education and assessment regularly use a range of psychometric techniques to analyse data, evaluate models, and make crucial progression decisions regarding student learning. However, a recent editorial entitled "Is Psychometrics Science?" highlighted some core epistemological and practical problems in psychometrics, and brought its legitimacy into question. This paper attempts to address these issues by applying some key ideas from history and philosophy of science (HPS) discourse. I present some of the conceptual developments in HPS that have bearing on the psychometrics debate. Next, by shifting the focus onto what constitutes the practice of science, I discuss psychometrics in action. Some incorrectly conceptualize science as an assemblage of truths, rather than an assemblage of tools and goals. Psychometrics, however, seems to be an assemblage of methods and techniques. Psychometrics in action represents a range of practices using specific tools in specific contexts. This does not render the practice of psychometrics meaningless or futile. Engaging in debates about whether or not we should regard psychometrics as 'scientific' is, however, a fruitless enterprise. The key question and focus should be whether, on what grounds, and in what contexts, the existing methods and techniques used by psychometricians can be justified or criticized.
Topics: Humans; Philosophy; Psychometrics; Science
PubMed: 28752439
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-017-9789-7 -
Health & Place Mar 2017Many studies have examined the relationship between the food environment and health-related outcomes, but fewer consider the integrity of measures used to assess the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many studies have examined the relationship between the food environment and health-related outcomes, but fewer consider the integrity of measures used to assess the food environment. The present review builds on and makes comparisons with a previous review examining food environment measures and expands the previous review to include a more in depth examination of reliability and validity of measures and study designs employed.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies measuring the food environment published between 2007 and 2015. We identified these articles through: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Global Health databases; tables of contents of relevant journals; and the National Cancer Institute's Measures of the Food Environment website. This search yielded 11,928 citations. We retained and abstracted data from 432 studies.
RESULTS
The most common methodology used to study the food environment was geographic analysis (65% of articles) and the domination of this methodology has persisted since the last review. Only 25.9% of studies in this review reported the reliability of measures and 28.2% reported validity, but this was an improvement as compared to the earlier review. Very few of the studies reported construct validity. Studies reporting measures of the school or worksite environment have decreased since the previous review. Only 13.9% of the studies used a longitudinal design.
CONCLUSIONS
To strengthen research examining the relationship between the food environment and population health, there is a need for robust and psychometrically-sound measures and more sophisticated study designs.
Topics: Environment; Feeding Behavior; Food; Geographic Information Systems; Humans; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Research Design
PubMed: 28135633
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.12.007 -
Brain and Behavior Jul 2023Family members of patient in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience a set of problems which are entitled Family Intensive Care Units Syndrome (FICUS). (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Family members of patient in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience a set of problems which are entitled Family Intensive Care Units Syndrome (FICUS).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to develop and psychometrically evaluate the FICUS Inventory (FICUSI) in Iran.
METHODS
This sequential exploratory mixed method study was conducted in 2020 in two main phases. In the first phase, FICUSI was developed based on the results of an integrative review and a qualitative study. In the second phase, the psychometric properties of FICUSI, namely, face, content, and construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, interpretability, and scoring, were evaluated. The sample for the construct validity evaluation consisted of 283 ICU family members.
RESULTS
The primary item pool of FICUSI had 144 items and was reduced to 65 items or omitting overlapping and similar items. The scale-level content validity index of FICUSI was 0.89. In the construct validity evaluation through exploratory factor analysis, 31 items with factor loading values more than 0.3 were loaded on two factors (namely psychological symptoms and nonpsychological symptoms) which explained 68.45% of the total variance. The Cronbach's alpha and the test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient of FICUSI were 0.95 and 0.97, respectively.
CONCLUSION
FICUSI is a valid and reliable instrument which can be used in clinical settings and studies for FICUS assessment. Further studies for the cross-cultural adaptation of FICUSI in other contexts are recommended.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Health care providers in clinical settings can use FICUSI to assess FICUS among the family caregivers of patients in ICU. Health care providers' better understanding of FICUS helps them understand the quality of their own services for the family members of patients in ICU.
Topics: Humans; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Intensive Care Units; Caregivers; Family; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 37279159
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3101 -
Current Opinion in Psychology Aug 2019The development and implementation of psychometrically sound behavioral measures of mindfulness are important to advancing the science of mindfulness. To help organize,... (Review)
Review
The development and implementation of psychometrically sound behavioral measures of mindfulness are important to advancing the science of mindfulness. To help organize, conceptualize, and guide the development of behavioral measures of mindfulness, we propose defining features, and a four-domain framework, of the behavioral assessment of mindfulness. The framework domains include measurement of (I) objects of mindful awareness, (II) time-course of mindful awareness, (III) sensitivity of mindful awareness, and (IV) attitudes toward present moment experience. We describe mindfulness processes in each domain, and review extant behavioral method(s) and specific behavioral measure(s) of mindfulness processes per domain. Four of the 12 reviewed measures demonstrate acceptable reliabilities and preliminary evidence of construct validity as measures of mindfulness processes.
Topics: Awareness; Humans; Mindfulness; Psychometrics
PubMed: 30959378
DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.01.008 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Oct 2017Significant resources are being invested into eHealth technology to improve health care. Few resources have focused on evaluating the impact of use on patient outcomes A... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Significant resources are being invested into eHealth technology to improve health care. Few resources have focused on evaluating the impact of use on patient outcomes A standardized set of metrics used across health systems and research will enable aggregation of data to inform improved implementation, clinical practice, and ultimately health outcomes associated with use of patient-facing eHealth technologies.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project was to conduct a systematic review to (1) identify existing instruments for eHealth research and implementation evaluation from the patient's point of view, (2) characterize measurement components, and (3) assess psychometrics.
METHODS
Concepts from existing models and published studies of technology use and adoption were identified and used to inform a search strategy. Search terms were broadly categorized as platforms (eg, email), measurement (eg, survey), function/information use (eg, self-management), health care occupations (eg, nurse), and eHealth/telemedicine (eg, mHealth). A computerized database search was conducted through June 2014. Included articles (1) described development of an instrument, or (2) used an instrument that could be traced back to its original publication, or (3) modified an instrument, and (4) with full text in English language, and (5) focused on the patient perspective on technology, including patient preferences and satisfaction, engagement with technology, usability, competency and fluency with technology, computer literacy, and trust in and acceptance of technology. The review was limited to instruments that reported at least one psychometric property. Excluded were investigator-developed measures, disease-specific assessments delivered via technology or telephone (eg, a cancer-coping measure delivered via computer survey), and measures focused primarily on clinician use (eg, the electronic health record).
RESULTS
The search strategy yielded 47,320 articles. Following elimination of duplicates and non-English language publications (n=14,550) and books (n=27), another 31,647 articles were excluded through review of titles. Following a review of the abstracts of the remaining 1096 articles, 68 were retained for full-text review. Of these, 16 described an instrument and six used an instrument; one instrument was drawn from the GEM database, resulting in 23 articles for inclusion. None included a complete psychometric evaluation. The most frequently assessed property was internal consistency (21/23, 91%). Testing for aspects of validity ranged from 48% (11/23) to 78% (18/23). Approximately half (13/23, 57%) reported how to score the instrument. Only six (26%) assessed the readability of the instrument for end users, although all the measures rely on self-report.
CONCLUSIONS
Although most measures identified in this review were published after the year 2000, rapidly changing technology makes instrument development challenging. Platform-agnostic measures need to be developed that focus on concepts important for use of any type of eHealth innovation. At present, there are important gaps in the availability of psychometrically sound measures to evaluate eHealth technologies.
Topics: Humans; Needs Assessment; Psychometrics; Surveys and Questionnaires; Telemedicine
PubMed: 29021128
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7638 -
Advances in Health Sciences Education :... Aug 2016Psychometrics has recently undergone extensive criticism within the medical education literature. The use of quantitative measurement using psychometric instruments such...
Psychometrics has recently undergone extensive criticism within the medical education literature. The use of quantitative measurement using psychometric instruments such as response scales is thought to emphasize a narrow range of relevant learner skills and competencies. Recent reviews and commentaries suggest that a paradigm shift might be presently underway. We argue for caution, in that the psychometrics approach and the quantitative account of competencies that it reflects is based on a rich discussion regarding measurement and scaling that led to the establishment of this paradigm. Rather than reflecting a homogeneous discipline focused on core competencies devoid of consideration of context, the psychometric community has a history of discourse and debate within the field, with an acknowledgement that the techniques and instruments developed within psychometrics are heuristics that must be used pragmatically.
Topics: Education, Medical; Educational Measurement; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Psychometrics
PubMed: 26303112
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-015-9623-z -
Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and... Mar 2020To develop and assess the reliability and validity of a new instrument used during the third trimester of pregnancy to measure women's confidence in their ability to...
OBJECTIVE
To develop and assess the reliability and validity of a new instrument used during the third trimester of pregnancy to measure women's confidence in their ability to achieve physiologic birth, the Preparation for Labor and Birth (P-LAB) instrument.
DESIGN
Two-phase instrument development study that consisted of item generation and a prospective field test.
SETTING
Field testing occurred in five midwestern U.S. prenatal clinics.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants in the field test were 203 nulliparous and parous pregnant women who intended to give birth vaginally.
METHODS
Psychometric testing consisted of test-retest reliability testing and assessments of content validity, face validity, and construct validity. We measured construct validity using exploratory factor analysis and correlation with the Sense of Coherence Scale.
RESULTS
The 22-item P-LAB showed good content validity, good internal consistency, and stability over time. All items had content validity index scores greater than or equal to 0.8, and the total instrument content validity index was 0.95. We identified four factors related to women's confidence in their ability to achieve physiologic birth: Planned Use of Pain Medication, Relationship With Care Provider and Supportive Birth Environment, Beliefs About Labor, and Labor Support (social and professional). Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the four extracted factors were .93, .76, .73 and .74, respectively. Intraclass correlation [95% confidence interval] for the total questionnaire was .92 [.88, .94]. We found no linear association between total P-LAB scores and sense of coherence.
CONCLUSION
Our findings demonstrate acceptable initial psychometric properties for the P-LAB instrument. Additional testing is required to evaluate the instrument's construct, convergent, and divergent validity.
Topics: Female; Health Planning Guidelines; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Minnesota; Pregnancy; Pregnant Women; Prospective Studies; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Surveys and Questionnaires; Wisconsin
PubMed: 32035974
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogn.2019.12.006 -
European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2022There is no therapeutic competence and adherence scale for grief-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (grief-focused CBT). However, given the growing body of evidence... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
There is no therapeutic competence and adherence scale for grief-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (grief-focused CBT). However, given the growing body of evidence for the efficacy of grief-focused CBT, such a scale is needed both to ensure the internal validity of clinical trials and to facilitate psychotherapy process research.
OBJECTIVE
To develop and undertake a psychometric evaluation of a therapeutic adherence and competence scale for grief-focused CBT.
METHOD
The scale was developed in two steps. (I) Five experts on the treatment of prolonged grief disorder provided feedback on the relevance and appropriateness of the items. The scale was revised to reflect their feedback. The final therapeutic adherence and competence scale for grief (TACs-G) consisted of 15 adherence and 16 competence items. (II) Psychometric evaluation of the TACs-G was based on the rating of 48 randomly selected PG-CBT sessions by two independent raters. The videos were recorded in the context of a randomized controlled trial (RCT; DRKS00012317.) ICC was used to calculate inter-rater reliability and TACs-G stability over time (re-evaluation of 10 sessions after 12 months).
RESULTS
The five experts confirmed the relevance and appropriateness of the items. Interrater reliability was found to be high for the total adherence and competence scores (ICC = 0.889 and 0.782, respectively) and moderate to excellent for individual items (ICC = 0.509-1.00). The TACs-G stability over time was found to be strong for both adherence (ICC = 0.970) and competence total scores (ICC = 0.965).
CONCLUSIONS
The TACs-G for CBT is a reliable instrument that can be used not only to ensure internal validity but is also suited for psychotherapy process studies. Additionally, it provides a valuable database for targeted feedback in training settings.
HIGHLIGHTS
This is the first study to report on the development and psychometrical evaluation of a grief-focused adherence and competence scale.Although an increasing number of clinical trials do report the efficacy of grief-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy, none of these studies used a standardized adherence and competence scale to control internal validity.In the present study, we introduced a therapeutic adherence and competence scale for grief (TACs-G) that can be applied efficiently across different research settings (e.g. manipulation check, dissemination), and report results of good to excellent psychometric properties.The scale itself could prove useful beyond the research setting as it could possibly serve as a basis for feedback in training settings.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Grief; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Treatment Adherence and Compliance
PubMed: 35759325
DOI: 10.1080/20008198.2022.2079873 -
OTJR : Occupation, Participation and... Apr 2022The profession's foundational construct, occupation, is therapeutically effective, but there remains inconsistent use as a therapeutic medium. A psychometrically strong...
The profession's foundational construct, occupation, is therapeutically effective, but there remains inconsistent use as a therapeutic medium. A psychometrically strong tool can measure and maximize the use of occupation. This study establishes preliminary psychometric properties of the Occupation-Based Practice Assessment (OBPA). This methodological study tested inter-rater reliability using simulated video cases to examine the OBPA. Overall reliability was acceptable at .868. All subsections were acceptable including (.871), (.819), and (.807). Two items, (.946) and (.981), demonstrated excellent reliability; while three items, (.747), (.799), and (.735), fell slightly below the acceptable level. Preliminary investigation of the OBPA reveals acceptable inter-rater reliability and suggests potential for use following additional in-vivo testing to measure therapeutic interactions to enhance student learning, optimize clinical practice, facilitate professional development, evaluate programs, and quantify occupation-based practice in research.
Topics: Humans; Occupations; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 34736349
DOI: 10.1177/15394492211050633