-
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology Apr 2023Self-control is regarded as a necessary trait in almost every aspect of human life. Numerous self-control scales have been developed and utilized in various fields, but... (Review)
Review
Self-control is regarded as a necessary trait in almost every aspect of human life. Numerous self-control scales have been developed and utilized in various fields, but their psychometric characteristics have not been reviewed and evaluated. In this regard, the objective of this review is to identify and evaluate original self-report self-control measures. We examined relevant studies published before November 2021 using Web of Science, PsycArticles, ProQuest, and Medline electronic databases and conducted reference list searches. Then, we selected a total of 34 measures that met the defined selection criteria and evaluated the quality of the instruments using the standards proposed by Terwee and colleagues. Overall, our findings demonstrated that no instruments received a perfect score; however, some performed better than others in quality assessment.
Topics: Humans; Self Report; Psychometrics
PubMed: 36303428
DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12881 -
BMC Public Health Jul 2022To assess the quantity and quality of studies using an observational measure of behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to narratively describe the association...
A systematic review of observational methods used to quantify personal protective behaviours among members of the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the concordance between observational and self-report measures in infectious disease health protection.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the quantity and quality of studies using an observational measure of behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to narratively describe the association between self-report and observational data for behaviours relevant to controlling an infectious disease outbreak.
DESIGN
Systematic review and narrative synthesis of observational studies.
DATA SOURCES
We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Publons, Scopus and the UK Health Security Agency behavioural science LitRep database from inception to 17th September 2021 for relevant studies.
STUDY SELECTION
We included studies which collected observational data of at least one of three health protective behaviours (hand hygiene, face covering use and maintaining physical distance from others ('social distancing') during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies where observational data were compared to self-report data in relation to any infectious disease were also included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
We evaluated the quality of studies using the NIH quality assessment scale for observational studies, extracted data on sample size, setting and adherence to health protective behaviours, and synthesized results narratively.
RESULTS
Of 27,279 published papers on COVID-19 relevant health protective behaviours that included one or more terms relating to hand hygiene, face covering and social distancing, we identified 48 studies that included an objective observational measure. Of these, 35 assessed face covering use, 17 assessed hand hygiene behaviour and seven assessed physical distancing. The general quality of these studies was good. When expanding the search to all infectious diseases, we included 21 studies that compared observational versus self-report data. These almost exclusively studied hand hygiene. The difference in outcomes was striking, with self-report over-estimating observed adherence by up to a factor of five in some settings. In only four papers did self-report match observational data in any domains.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite their importance in controlling the pandemic, we found remarkably few studies assessing protective behaviours by observation, rather than self-report, though these studies tended to be of reasonably good quality. Observed adherence tends to be substantially lower than estimates obtained via self-report. Accurate assessment of levels of personal protective behaviour, and evaluation of interventions to increase this, would benefit from the use of observational methods.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Infection Control; Pandemics; Physical Distancing; Self Report
PubMed: 35902818
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13819-0 -
Clinical Child and Family Psychology... Jun 2019The assessment of general mental health and wellbeing is important within child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) for both clinicians and policy makers....
The assessment of general mental health and wellbeing is important within child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) for both clinicians and policy makers. Measurement tools are routinely relied upon to aid assessment and to monitor and evaluate treatment and service effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review using the COSMIN checklist to identify measures of general mental health and wellbeing for an adolescent mental health population. A systematic database search was performed using PsychINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Database searching produced 9587 records, with 27 papers meeting eligibility criteria and 16 measures identified and critically appraised. The Y-QOL-R and the Y-QOL.30.1 had the most robust psychometric properties. When considering the clinical utility of measures alongside psychometric properties of measures, the GHQ-12, ORS and YP CORE had the greatest clinical utility. The psychometric quality of measures reviewed overall, however, were generally poor in quality. Measuring outcomes in CAMHS and ensuring appropriate treatment pathways for young people is important. This review highlights the need for more robust testing of the psychometric properties of adolescent measures. When selecting measurement tools, clinicians should not only consider the purpose of the measure, (i.e., discriminative, predictive, and evaluative) and characteristics of the instrument (e.g., intended population, measure length), but should also the quality of the psychometric properties of the instrument.
Topics: Adolescent; Adolescent Health Services; Humans; Mental Disorders; Mental Health Services; Psychometrics; Self Report
PubMed: 30617936
DOI: 10.1007/s10567-018-00273-x -
Journal of Periodontology Dec 2016Periodontal disease (PdD) has been shown to be related to other systemic diseases. However, to assess this relationship, large epidemiologic studies are required. Such... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Periodontal disease (PdD) has been shown to be related to other systemic diseases. However, to assess this relationship, large epidemiologic studies are required. Such studies need validated self-report measures. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the validity of self-reported measures in the diagnosis of PdD.
METHODS
The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to January 2016. Two periodontal journals were searched manually. Two reviewers independently made selected studies and extracted data. All disagreements were resolved after discussion with a third reviewer. Risk of bias was evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Of 933 papers found, 11 were selected for the review. All studies, except two, had acceptable quality. Four comparable studies were selected for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Study size ranged from 114 to 1,426 participants. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 4% to 93% and 58% to 94%, respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio was 1.4 (95% CI: 0.9 to 2.2) for the question on bleeding gums and 11.7 (95% CI: 4.1 to 33.4) for the question on tooth mobility. Heterogeneity was low for most questions except those on painful gums and tooth mobility.
CONCLUSIONS
Self-reported PdD has acceptable validity and can be used for surveillance of PdD in large epidemiologic studies. However, there is a need for large, well-designed diagnostic studies.
Topics: Gingival Diseases; Humans; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Periodontal Diseases; Self Report
PubMed: 27523519
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2016.160196 -
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes Apr 2022Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a rare, progressive, life-limiting genetic neuromuscular condition that significantly impacts the quality of life of informal caregivers.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a rare, progressive, life-limiting genetic neuromuscular condition that significantly impacts the quality of life of informal caregivers. Carer quality of life is measured using heterogeneous self-report scales, yet their suitability for Duchenne remains unclear. This review aimed to identify and evaluate the reliability and validity of quality of life instruments in Duchenne carers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Full research articles reporting data on multiple-item self-report quality of life instruments in informal Duchenne carers were included. Extracted evidence was qualitatively synthesised and evaluated, including risk of bias, against the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. Duchenne carer collaborators (N = 17) helped rate the instruments' content validity.
RESULTS
Thirty-one articles featuring thirty-two quality of life instruments were included. Content validity was rated as "inconsistent" based on very low quality evidence. For Duchenne carer collaborators, the best instrument was PedsQL Family Impact Module. Only one instrument had evidence for structural validity (rated "unsatisfactory") and measurement invariance (rated "satisfactory"). Instruments received "satisfactory" ratings for internal consistency and mixed ratings for construct validity and responsiveness. There was no evidence for reliability, measurement error, or criterion validity.
DISCUSSION
Instruments used to measure Duchenne carer quality of life have limited and often inconsistent supportive psychometric evidence. Further work must investigate instruments' measurement properties in Duchenne carers and/or the development of new tools. In the interim, we recommend considering the PedsQL Family Impact Module based on Duchenne carer ratings.
Topics: Caregivers; Humans; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Quality of Life; Reproducibility of Results; Self Report; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35366897
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-022-01964-4 -
The International Journal of Eating... Feb 2016Binge eating is a symptom common to bulimia nervosa, anorexia nervosa (binge/purge subtype), and binge eating disorder. There are many self-report measures available to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Binge eating is a symptom common to bulimia nervosa, anorexia nervosa (binge/purge subtype), and binge eating disorder. There are many self-report measures available to aid the assessment of eating disorders symptoms, but there has not yet been a systematic review of the literature to identify the most valid and reliable measures for use in assessment and treatment of binge eating.
METHOD
A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report measures that assess binge eating symptoms and psychopathology was conducted. Two independent raters assessed the psychometric properties of each measure using a standardized quality analysis tool.
RESULTS
Of the 2,927 studies identified, 72 studies met the inclusion criteria and described the psychometric properties of 29 different self-report measures, and nine specific subscales within these. Results from the quality analysis tool utilized in this study indicated that none of the included measures currently meet all nine criteria of adequate psychometric properties.
DISCUSSION
Most of the included measures had evidence for some adequate psychometric properties. Two measures received six out of nine positive ratings for the assessed psychometric properties, the BITE and the BULIT-R, and thus appear to be the measures with the most evidence of their validity and reliability. Overall, our findings implicate a need for further investigation of the psychometric properties of the available self-report questionnaires in this field.
Topics: Binge-Eating Disorder; Female; Humans; Male; Psychometrics; Psychopathology; Reproducibility of Results; Self Report
PubMed: 26311621
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22453 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2021Anxiety has been identified as one of the most severe and long-lasting symptoms experienced by hospitalized children with cancer. Self-reports are especially important... (Review)
Review
Anxiety has been identified as one of the most severe and long-lasting symptoms experienced by hospitalized children with cancer. Self-reports are especially important for documenting emotional and abstract concepts, such as anxiety. Children may not always be able to communicate their symptoms due to language difficulties, a lack of developmental language skills, or the severity of their illness. Instruments with sufficient psychometric quality and pictorial support may address this communication challenge. The purpose of this review was to systematically search the published literature and identify validated and reliable self-report instruments available for children aged 5-18 years to use in the assessment of their anxiety to ensure they receive appropriate anxiety-relief intervention in hospital. What validated self-report instruments can children with cancer use to self-report anxiety in the hospital setting? Which of these instruments offer pictorial support? Eight instruments were identified, but most of the instruments lacked pictorial support. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL™) 3.0 Brain Tumor Module and Cancer Module proved to be useful in hospitalized children with cancer, as they provide pictorial support. It is recommended that faces or symbols be used along with the VAS, as pictures are easily understood by younger children. Future studies could include the adaptation of existing instruments in digital e-health tools.
Topics: Adolescent; Anxiety; Child; Child, Hospitalized; Child, Preschool; Humans; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Self Report
PubMed: 33669455
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18041911 -
Developmental Medicine and Child... Aug 2023To identify and evaluate psychometric properties of assessment tools for assessing pain interference in children, adolescents, and adults with chronic pain and the... (Review)
Review
AIM
To identify and evaluate psychometric properties of assessment tools for assessing pain interference in children, adolescents, and adults with chronic pain and the inability to self-report.
METHOD
The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022310102). A search was run in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo (29th March 2022) to identify articles reporting psychometric properties of pain interference assessment tools for children, adolescents, and adults with chronic pain and the inability to objectively self-report pain. Retrieved studies were reviewed by two authors (MGS, LCF) and study quality was assessed using COSMIN.
RESULTS
Psychometric properties of 10 pain interference tools were assessed from 33 studies. The Paediatric Pain Profile (PPP) had low-quality evidence for content validity and internal consistency with children and adolescents who are unable to self-report. No tools for adults had evidence for content validity and internal consistency. No tool had evidence for all nine psychometric properties.
INTERPRETATION
The PPP is recommended for pain interference assessment in children and adolescents with chronic pain and the inability to self-report. Few tools are available for adults. Three tools for children (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Pediatric Proxy Pain Interference Scale; Bath Adolescent Pain Questionnaire for Parents; modified Brief Pain Inventory-Proxy [mBPI]) and three tools for adults (Doloplus-2; Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Pain Interference Scale-proxy; Brief Pain Inventory-proxy) are promising but require further investigation.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Adult; Self Report; Chronic Pain; Psychometrics; Surveys and Questionnaires; Pain Measurement; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 36740907
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15535 -
Physical Therapy in Sport : Official... Nov 2023Proprioceptive training and resistance training are physiotherapy treatment methods for Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy of resistance training with elastic bands compared to proprioceptive training on balance and self-report measures in patients with chronic ankle instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Proprioceptive training and resistance training are physiotherapy treatment methods for Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI).
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of proprioceptive training to resistance training with elastic bands for treating CAI as measured by the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT).
METHOD
Our systematic study and meta-analysis was based on the PICOS and PRISMA protocols. The PubMed, PEDro, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for randomized clinical trials on proprioceptive and resistance training. Risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane guidelines and quality of evidence was reported using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE).
RESULTS
Five studies involving 259 patients were included in the review. According to the findings of the meta-analysis, proprioceptive training was similarly effective with resistance training in SEBT and FAAM measures. Compared with resistance exercise, proprioceptive training demonstrated some benefits in CAIT scores (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -2.21, 95% CI = -4.05-0.36), but these intervention results were not clinically significant (MDC, MCID score >3 points).
CONCLUSION
Low-quality evidence from studies showed that neither of the interventions was superior on the SEBT or the FAAM scores in individuals with CAI because no clinically significant differences were found. More high-quality studies comparing the two interventions are needed to draw firm conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Resistance Training; Self Report; Ankle; Ankle Joint; Postural Balance; Joint Instability; Chronic Disease
PubMed: 37801793
DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2023.09.009 -
Clinical Psychology Review Aug 2021Cognitive flexibility can be thought of as the ability to effectively adapt one's cognitive and behavioural strategies in response to changing task or environmental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Same room - different windows? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in healthy adults.
Cognitive flexibility can be thought of as the ability to effectively adapt one's cognitive and behavioural strategies in response to changing task or environmental demands. To substantiate the common inference that self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility provide 'different windows into the same room', we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility are related in healthy adults. Ten databases and relevant grey literature were searched from inception. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adhered to. Twenty-one articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. A multi-level random-effects meta-analysis revealed no relationship (0.05, 95% CI = -0.00 to 0.10). Random-effects meta-analyses raised the possibility that the Cognitive Flexibility Scale and the Trail Making Test - part B (time) may be related (0.19, 95% CI = 0.06 to 0.31). We conclude that the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility is not large enough to be considered convincing evidence for the two assessment approaches sharing construct validity. These results have clear implications for assessing and interpreting cognitive flexibility research and clinical practice.
Topics: Adult; Cognition; Humans; Neuropsychological Tests; Self Report
PubMed: 34332263
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102061