-
PloS One 2016Currently, terrorism and suicide bombing are global psychosocial processes that attracts a growing number of psychological and psychiatric contributions to enhance... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, terrorism and suicide bombing are global psychosocial processes that attracts a growing number of psychological and psychiatric contributions to enhance practical counter-terrorism measures. The present study is a systematic review that explores the methodological quality reporting and the psychometric soundness of the instruments developed to identify risk factors of terrorism, extremism, radicalisation, authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
METHOD
A systematic search strategy was established to identify instruments and studies developed to screen individuals at risk of committing extremist or terrorist offences using 20 different databases across the fields of law, medicine, psychology, sociology and politics. Information extracted was consolidated into two different tables and a 26-item checklist, reporting respectively background information, the psychometric properties of each tool, and the methodological quality markers of these tools. 37 articles met our criteria, which included a total of 4 instruments to be used operationally by professionals, 17 tools developed as research measures, and 9 inventories that have not been generated from a study.
RESULTS
Just over half of the methodological quality markers required for a transparent methodological description of the instruments were reported. The amount of reported psychological properties was even fewer, with only a third of them available across the different studies. The category presenting the least satisfactory results was that containing the 4 instruments to be used operationally by professionals, which can be explained by the fact that half of them refrained from publishing the major part of their findings and relevant guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
A great number of flaws have been identified through this systematic review. The authors encourage future researchers to be more thorough, comprehensive and transparent in their methodology. They also recommend the creation of a multi-disciplinary joint working group in order to best tackle this growing contemporary problem.
Topics: Authoritarianism; Databases, Factual; Humans; Psychometrics; Terrorism
PubMed: 28002457
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166947 -
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 -
Health Research Policy and Systems Jan 2023To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.
METHODS
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.
RESULTS
From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.
Topics: Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Cross-Sectional Studies; Psychometrics; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 36604697
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00937-9 -
Drug and Alcohol Review Nov 2023Consideration of an individual's quality of life (QoL) can benefit assessment and treatment of addictive disorders, however, uncertainty remains over operationalisation... (Review)
Review
ISSUES
Consideration of an individual's quality of life (QoL) can benefit assessment and treatment of addictive disorders, however, uncertainty remains over operationalisation of the construct as an outcome and the appropriateness of existing measures for these populations. This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate QoL and health-related QoL outcome instruments used in addiction-related risk and harm research and map their conceptualised domains.
APPROACH
Three electronic databases and a specialised assessment library were searched on 1 February 2022 for QoL or health-related QoL outcome instruments used with addiction-related risk and harm populations. PRISMA reporting guidance was followed and included outcome instruments were appraised using mixed methods. Psychometric evidence supporting their use was summarised. The COSMIN risk of bias tool was used to assess validation studies.
KEY FINDINGS
A total of 298 articles (330 studies) used 53 outcome instruments and 41 unique domains of QoL. Eleven instruments' psychometric properties were evaluated. No instrument was assessed for any parameter in at least five studies for meta-analytic pooling. Cronbach's alpha (α) internal consistency was the most widely assessed parameter with the AQoLS, WHOQOL-BREF, ALQoL-9, Q-LES-Q-SF, SF-12, DUQoL, QLI and SF-36 displaying promising statistics (α > 0.70).
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Many instruments have been utilised. However, a significant proportion of studies applied a small number of instruments with minimal high-quality validation evidence supporting their use within addiction-related risk and harm. Promising instruments are recommended, however, the paucity of supporting evidence limits confidence in the reliability and validity of QoL measurement in these populations.
Topics: Humans; Behavior, Addictive; Psychometrics; Quality of Life; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 37439397
DOI: 10.1111/dar.13717 -
International Psychogeriatrics Jun 2015There are several scales used to detect apathy in disease populations. Since apathy is a prevalent symptom in many neurodegenerative diseases, this is an especially... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are several scales used to detect apathy in disease populations. Since apathy is a prevalent symptom in many neurodegenerative diseases, this is an especially important context in which to identify and compare scales.
AIMS
To provide an overview of apathy scales validated in generic and specific neurodegenerative disease populations, compare validation studies' methodological quality and the psychometric properties of the validated apathy scales.
METHODS
A systematic review of literature was conducted of articles published between 1980 and 2013. The final articles selected for review were rated on methodological quality and the psychometric properties of the scales used were interpreted.
RESULTS
Sixteen articles validating apathy scales were included in the review, five in a generic neurodegenerative sample and eleven in specific neurodegenerative samples. The methodological quality of specific studies varied from poor to excellent. The highest quality, which had psychometrically favorable scales, were the dementia apathy interview and rating (DAIR) and the apathy evaluation scale-clinical version (AES-C) in Alzheimer's disease and the Lille apathy rating scale (LARS) in Parkinson's disease. Generic neurodegenerative disease validation studies were of average methodological quality and yielded inconsistent psychometric properties.
CONCLUSIONS
Several instruments can be recommended for use in some specific neurodegenerative diseases. Other instruments should either be validated or developed to assess apathy in more generic populations.
Topics: Apathy; Humans; Neurodegenerative Diseases; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychological Tests; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 25355282
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610214002221 -
Child: Care, Health and Development Jul 2023The Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) is the most widely used questionnaire for the assessment of children participation. While several... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment (CAPE) is the most widely used questionnaire for the assessment of children participation. While several cultural adaptations and translations exist, the quality of the methods used to produce them, as well as their psychometric properties, remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the different translated and/or culturally adapted versions of the CAPE for children and youth with and without disabilities.
METHOD
A search was performed in five electronic databases CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (ELSEVIER), PSYCINFO (OVID), and WEB OF SCIENCE Core Collection (CLARIVATE), for articles available in French or English with the last update in July 2022. All studies related to a cultural adaptation and/or translation of the CAPE were retained and evaluated based on established guidelines for cross-cultural adaptations and measurement properties. The extraction was done independently by two authors. A critical appraisal of translation and psychometric properties methods was performed. Critical appraisal of the articles was done using the Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures tool and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology.
RESULTS
The search identified 642 studies (321 duplicates removed), 16 of which underwent full-text review. Nine studies met all inclusion criteria and underwent analysis. According to the recommended steps for cross-cultural adaptations, one study performed 100% of the steps and two others performed 80%. None of the studies met all the recommendations for the evaluation of psychometric properties. A full evaluation of reliability and internal consistency were reported by 74% of studies. None of the studies reported a full evaluation of responsiveness, agreement and/or construct validity.
CONCLUSIONS
This review demonstrated limitations in the robustness of the methods used to develop and evaluate translated and culturally adapted versions of CAPE. To ensure valid and reliable results when conducting future research using the CAPE, it is recommended to fully evaluate the psychometric properties of the existing versions and to produce other translated and culturally adapted versions of the questionnaire.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Child; Pleasure; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Translations; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 36440829
DOI: 10.1111/cch.13086 -
Obesity Facts 2017People living with overweight and obesity often experience weight-based stigmatization. Investigations of the prevalence and correlates of weight bias and evaluation of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
People living with overweight and obesity often experience weight-based stigmatization. Investigations of the prevalence and correlates of weight bias and evaluation of weight bias reduction interventions depend upon psychometrically-sound measurement. Our paper is the first to comprehensively evaluate the psychometric properties, use of people-first language within items, and suitability for use with various populations of available self-report measures of weight bias.
METHODS
We searched five electronic databases to identify English-language self-report questionnaires of weight bias. We rated each questionnaire's psychometric properties based on initial validation reports and subsequent use, and examined item language.
RESULTS
Our systematic review identified 40 original self-report questionnaires. Most questionnaires were brief, demonstrated adequate internal consistency, and tapped key cognitive and affective dimensions of weight bias such as stereotypes and blaming. Current psychometric evidence is incomplete for many questionnaires, particularly with regard to the properties of test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change as well as discriminant and structural validity. Most questionnaires were developed prior to debate surrounding terminology preferences, and do not employ people-first language in the items administered to participants.
CONCLUSIONS
We provide information and recommendations for clinicians and researchers in selecting psychometrically sound measures of weight bias for various purposes and populations, and discuss future directions to improve measurement of this construct.
Topics: Body Weight; Female; Humans; Language; Male; Obesity; Overweight; Prejudice; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Self Report; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 28601888
DOI: 10.1159/000475716 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2020Wound care is an important realm of nurses' clinical responsibilities, and a broad knowledge and range of skills are needed to perform efficient and safe patient care....
Wound care is an important realm of nurses' clinical responsibilities, and a broad knowledge and range of skills are needed to perform efficient and safe patient care. Nurses' knowledge on this matter can be measured using knowledge tests. This study aims to identify, define, and analyse the knowledge tests developed for the measurement of nurses' wound care knowledge, and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the tests. This study was a systematic literature review. A total of 52 studies and 18 instruments were found. Of the 18 instruments, only 5 had been used more than once and were successful in a psychometric evaluation. These five instruments were analysed on the basis of their psychometric properties by using Zwakhalen et al.'s (2006) psychometric testing framework. According to the analysis, the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Test (PUKT) and the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool (PUKAT) were the most valid and reliable instruments for measuring nurses' wound care knowledge. Most of the instruments identified and analysed focused on pressure ulcers, indicating that future instruments could focus more on other types of wounds or on wound care in general in order to receive a broader understanding of nurses' wound care knowledge.
Topics: Clinical Competence; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Psychometrics; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32496632
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13417 -
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 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Feb 2023Self-report measures can improve evidence-based assessment practices in substance use disorder treatment, but many measures are burdensome and costly, limiting their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Self-report measures can improve evidence-based assessment practices in substance use disorder treatment, but many measures are burdensome and costly, limiting their utility in community practice and non-specialty healthcare settings. This systematic review identified and evaluated the psychometric properties of brief, free, and readily accessible self-report measures of substance use and related factors.
METHODS
We searched two electronic databases (PsycINFO and PubMed) in May 2021 for published literature on scales, measures, or instruments related to substance use, substance use treatment, and recovery, and extracted the names of all measures. Measures were included if they were: (1) brief (25 items or fewer), (2) freely accessible in a ready-to-use format, and (3) had published psychometric data.
RESULTS
An initial search returned 411 measures, of which 73 (18%) met criteria for inclusion. Included measures assessed a variety of substances (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, opioids, cannabinoids, cocaine) and measurement domains (e.g., use, severity, expectancies, withdrawal). Among these measures, 14 (19%) were classified as psychometrically "excellent," 27 (37%) were rated as "good," 32 (44%) were "adequate."
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the shift toward evidence-based assessment in substance use disorder treatment in the last twenty years, key areas of public health concern are lacking pragmatic, psychometrically valid measures. Among the brief measures we reviewed, less than a fifth met criteria for psychometric "excellence" and most of these instruments fell into one measurement domain: screening for problematic substance use. Future research should focus both on improving the evidence base for existing brief self-report measures and creating new low-burden measures for specific substances and treatment constructs.
Topics: Humans; Self Report; Substance-Related Disorders; Delivery of Health Care; Psychometrics; Nicotine
PubMed: 36535096
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109729