-
Neuropsychology Jul 2022Cognitive flexibility has been previously described as the ability to adjust cognitive and behavioral strategies in response to changing contextual demands. Cognitive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Back to the drawing board-The relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in clinical cohorts: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Cognitive flexibility has been previously described as the ability to adjust cognitive and behavioral strategies in response to changing contextual demands. Cognitive flexibility is typically assessed via self-report questionnaires and performance on neuropsychological tests in research and clinical practice. A common assumption among researchers and clinicians is that self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility assess the same or similar constructs, but the extent of the relationship between these two assessment approaches in clinical cohorts remains unknown. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in clinical samples.
METHOD
We searched 10 databases and relevant gray literature (e.g., other databases and pearling) from inception to October 2020 and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. Eleven articles including 405 participants satisfied our eligibility criteria.
RESULTS
A multilevel random-effects meta-analysis revealed no relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility (0.01, 95% CI [-0.16 to 0.18]). Individual random-effects meta-analyses between 12 different tests pairs also found no relationship.
CONCLUSION
Based on our results, it is clear that the two assessment approaches of cognitive flexibility provide independent information-they do not assess the same construct. These findings have important ramifications for future research and clinical practice-there is a need to reconsider what constructs self-report and neuropsychological tests of "cognitive flexibility" actually assess, and avoid the interchangeable use of these assessments in clinical samples. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Cognition; Humans; Neuropsychological Tests; Self Report; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35389719
DOI: 10.1037/neu0000796 -
PloS One 2022Accurate measurement of adherence is crucial to rigorously evaluate interventions aimed at improving this outcome in patients undergoing in-center hemodialysis. Previous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Establishing the criterion validity of self-report measures of adherence in hemodialysis through associations with clinical biomarkers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Accurate measurement of adherence is crucial to rigorously evaluate interventions aimed at improving this outcome in patients undergoing in-center hemodialysis. Previous research has shown great variability in non-adherence rates between studies, mainly due to the use of different direct (e.g., clinical biomarkers) and indirect (e.g., questionnaires) measures. Although self-reported adherence in hemodialysis has been widely explored, it is still unclear which is the most accurate questionnaire to assess this outcome; therefore, the question of how to optimize adherence measurement in research and clinical practice has emerged as a key issue that needs to be addressed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the criterion validity of self-report measures of adherence in hemodialysis established through the association between test scores and clinical biomarkers (the criterion measure). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (2021 CRD42021267550). The last search was performed on March 29th, 2022, on Web of Science (all databases included), Scopus, CINHAL, APA PsycInfo, and MEDLINE/PubMed. Twenty-nine primary studies were included, and thirty-eight associations were analyzed. The Hunter-Schmidt's meta-analysis was computed for the associations with more than two studies (n = 20). The results showed that six associations were large (16%), 11 were medium (29%) and the remaining were of small strength. The test scores from the End-Stage Renal Disease Adherence Questionnaire (range: 0.212
Topics: Humans; Renal Dialysis; Self Report; Patient Compliance; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Biomarkers; Phosphorus; Potassium
PubMed: 36256660
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276163 -
PloS One 2022Oral health is a key factor of overall health and closely associated with well-being and quality of life. Mastication is one the most important oral functions and may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral health is a key factor of overall health and closely associated with well-being and quality of life. Mastication is one the most important oral functions and may deteriorate with aging. Evidence on association between masticatory dysfunction and frailty in the literature is scarce and not coherent.
METHODS
A search strategy was developed to conduct a systematic review of the literature in PubMed, CINAHL, and AMED in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched for studies published in 2000 or later that examined associations between self-reported masticatory dysfunction and frailty risk. The reference lists of the relevant articles were reviewed for additional studies. We calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) of association between self-reported masticatory dysfunction and the risk of frailty by fixed-effects meta-analysis. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Publication bias was assessed by visually inspecting a funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 285 studies were identified by the literature search. Among 5 studies selected for this review, 4 cross-sectional studies including a total of 7425 individuals were used for meta-analysis. The pooled results by a fixed-effects model showed that there was a significant association between self-reported masticatory dysfunction and frailty risk (pooled OR = 1.83, 95%CI = 1.55-2.18, p<0.00001). There was no evidence of publication bias observed.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis highlighted pooled cross-sectional evidence that community-dwelling older people who report masticatory dysfunction are significantly more likely to be frail than those who do not. The limitations of this study are: inclusion of only cross-sectional studies, no gold standard to measure masticatory functions, self-reported information on masticatory function, and the limited number of included studies. More longitudinal studies are warranted for further understanding of the causal pathways and elucidate underlying mechanisms. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021277173.
Topics: Aged; Cross-Sectional Studies; Frail Elderly; Frailty; Humans; Quality of Life; Self Report
PubMed: 36084116
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273812 -
Trauma, Violence & Abuse Jul 2023Research on violence against children (VAC) requires meaningful, valid, and reliable self-report by children. Many instruments have been used globally and decisions to...
Research on violence against children (VAC) requires meaningful, valid, and reliable self-report by children. Many instruments have been used globally and decisions to select suitable measures are complex. This review identifies child and adolescent self-report measures that are most likely to yield valid, reliable, and comparable data in this field. A systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD4201706) was conducted using the 2018 Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) criteria. Six electronic databases and gray literature were searched. Manuscripts published in English and describing the development and psychometric qualities of child/adolescent self-report instruments were included. Thirty-nine original instruments and 13 adaptations were identified in 124 studies. The quality of evidence ranged from "very low" to "high" depending on the measure and the psychometric properties assessed. Most measures were not widely used, and some have been applied in many settings despite limited evidence of their psychometric rigor. Few studies assessed content validity, particularly with children. The ACE, CTQ, CTS-PC, CECA, ICAST, and JVQ have the best psychometric properties. An overview of items measuring frequency, onset, duration, perpetrators, and locations is provided as well as an assessment of the practicalities for administration to help researchers select the instrument best suited for their research questions. This comprehensive review shows the strengths and weaknesses of VAC research instruments. Six measures that have sufficient psychometric properties are recommended for use in research, with the caveat that extensive piloting is carried out to ensure sufficient content validity for the local context and population.
Topics: Humans; Child; Adolescent; Self Report; Psychometrics; Violence; Reproducibility of Results; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 35446727
DOI: 10.1177/15248380221082152 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Dec 2022Error in self-reported food and beverage intake affects the accuracy of dietary intake data. Systematically synthesizing available data on contributors to error within...
A Systematic Review Examining Contributors to Misestimation of Food and Beverage Intake Based on Short-Term Self-Report Dietary Assessment Instruments Administered to Adults.
Error in self-reported food and beverage intake affects the accuracy of dietary intake data. Systematically synthesizing available data on contributors to error within and between food groups has not been conducted but may help inform error mitigation strategies. In this review we aimed to systematically identify, quantify, and compare contributors to error in estimated intake of foods and beverages, based on short-term self-report dietary assessment instruments, such as 24-h dietary recalls and dietary records. Seven research databases were searched for studies including self-reported dietary assessment and a comparator measure of observed intake (e.g., direct observation or controlled feeding studies) in healthy adults up until December 2021. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from included studies, recording quantitative data on omissions, intrusions, misclassifications, and/or portion misestimations. Risk of bias was assessed using the QualSyst tool. A narrative synthesis focused on patterns of error within and between food groups. Of 2328 articles identified, 29 met inclusion criteria and were included, corresponding to 2964 participants across 15 countries. Most frequently reported contributors to error were omissions and portion size misestimations of food/beverage items. Although few consistent patterns were seen in omission of consumed items, beverages were omitted less frequently (0-32% of the time), whereas vegetables (2-85%) and condiments (1-80%) were omitted more frequently than other items. Both under- and overestimation of portion size was seen for most single food/beverage items within study samples and most food groups. Studies considered and reported error in different ways, impeding the interpretation of how error contributors interact to impact overall misestimation. We recommend that future studies report 1) all error contributors for each food/beverage item evaluated (i.e., omission, intrusion, misclassification, and portion misestimation), and 2) measures of variation of the error. The protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42020202752 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Self Report; Nutrition Assessment; Beverages; Diet; Vegetables
PubMed: 36041186
DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmac085 -
Journal of Safety Research Jun 2018This research systematically reviewed the existing literature in regards to studies which have used both self-report and objective measures of driving behavior. The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
INTRODUCTION
This research systematically reviewed the existing literature in regards to studies which have used both self-report and objective measures of driving behavior. The objective of the current review was to evaluate disparities or similarities between self-report and objective measures of driving behavior.
METHODS
Searches were undertaken in the following electronic databases, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus, for peer-reviewed full-text articles that (1) focused on road safety, and (2) compared both subjective and objective measures of driving performance or driver safety. A total of 22,728 articles were identified, with 19 articles, comprising 20 studies, included as part of the review.
RESULTS
The research reported herein suggested that for some behaviors (e.g., driving in stressful situations) there were similarities between self-report and objective measures while for other behaviors (e.g., sleepiness and vigilance states) there were differences between these measurement techniques. In addition, findings from some studies suggested that in-vehicle devices may be a valid measurement tool to assess driving exposure in older drivers.
CONCLUSIONS
Further research is needed to examine the correspondence between self-report and objective measures of driving behavior. In particular, there is a need to increase the number of studies which compare "like with like" as it is difficult to draw comparisons when there are variations in measurement tools used.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Incorporating a range of objective and self-report measurements tools in research would help to ensure that the methods used offer the most reliable measures of assessing on-road behaviors.
Topics: Automobile Driving; Humans; Safety; Self Report
PubMed: 29776523
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2018.02.012 -
Journal of Applied Research in... Sep 2023Studies that have systematically reviewed the psychometric properties of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and subjective wellbeing instruments for adolescents with... (Review)
Review
Exploring the psychometric properties of self-report instruments used to measure health-related quality of life and subjective wellbeing of adolescents with intellectual disabilities: A Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Studies that have systematically reviewed the psychometric properties of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and subjective wellbeing instruments for adolescents with intellectual disabilities narrowly focus on disease or health-specific conditions. This review aimed to critically appraise the psychometric properties of self-report instruments used to measure HRQoL and subjective wellbeing of adolescents with intellectual disabilities.
METHOD
A systematic search was undertaken in four databases. The quality of the included studies and their psychometric properties was assessed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias checklist.
RESULTS
Seven studies reported psychometric properties of five different instruments. Only one instrument identified as having potential to be recommended for use but requires further validation research to assess its quality for this population.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a self-report instrument to assess HRQoL and subjective wellbeing of adolescents with intellectual disabilities.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Self Report; Quality of Life; Psychometrics; Consensus; Intellectual Disability; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 37101341
DOI: 10.1111/jar.13110 -
Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal... Aug 2012Regular physical activity and limiting extended periods of sitting are two behaviours critical for the prevention of obesity in young people. The purpose of the... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Regular physical activity and limiting extended periods of sitting are two behaviours critical for the prevention of obesity in young people. The purpose of the systematic review was to synthesize the psychometric evidence for self-report use-of-time tools that assess these behaviours. Articles were retrieved that reported reliability and/or validity for use-of-time tools in participants aged 18 years or under. Outcome variables were physical activity, sedentary behaviour and energy expenditure. Study quality was appraised, and the results summarized narratively. Sixteen studies and six different tools were identified. The tools were the Previous Day Physical Activity Recall, the Three-Day Physical Activity Recall, the Physical Activity Interview, the Computerized Activity Recall, the Activitygram, and the Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents. Overall, tools indicated moderate validity compared with objective and criterion comparison methods. Generally, validity correlation coefficients were in the range of 0.30-0.40. Correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability ranged widely from 0.24 to 0.98.
CONCLUSION
Use-of-time tools have indicated moderate reliability and validity for the assessment of physical activity and energy expenditure. Future research should focus on using criterion methods and on validating specifically for sedentary behaviour outcomes. Implementation of these tools for population surveillance should be considered.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child Behavior; Energy Metabolism; Exercise; Health Behavior; Health Status; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Reduction Behavior; Sedentary Behavior; Self Report
PubMed: 22429291
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.00993.x -
BMJ Open Apr 2017Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal... (Review)
Review
TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework.
DESIGN
A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains.
DATA SOURCES
Systematic searches were conducted via EBSCO, reference lists and expert opinion.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
The inventory included tools measuring SB in adults that could be self-completed at one sitting, and excluded tools measuring SB in specific populations or contexts. The systematic review included studies reporting on the accuracy against an objective measure of SB and/or sensitivity to change of a tool in the inventory.
RESULTS
The systematic review initially identified 32 distinct tools (141 questions), which were used to develop the TASST framework. Twenty-two studies evaluated accuracy and/or sensitivity to change representing only eight taxa. Assessing SB as a sum of behaviours and using a previous day recall were the most promising features of existing tools. Accuracy was poor for all existing tools, with underestimation and overestimation of SB. There was a lack of evidence about sensitivity to change.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the limited evidence, mapping existing SB tools onto the TASST framework has enabled informed recommendations to be made about the most promising features for a surveillance tool, identified aspects on which future research and development of SB surveillance tools should focus.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROPSPERO)/CRD42014009851.
Topics: Behavior Therapy; Benchmarking; Health Promotion; Humans; Population Surveillance; Public Health; Sedentary Behavior; Self Report
PubMed: 28391233
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013844 -
Psychological Assessment Feb 2019Paranoia can be conceptualized as consisting of a hierarchy of cognitions, ranging from commonly experienced thoughts about less severe perceived threats, up to less...
Paranoia can be conceptualized as consisting of a hierarchy of cognitions, ranging from commonly experienced thoughts about less severe perceived threats, up to less common, persecutory thoughts about extreme threats, which are associated with distressing psychosis. This review systematically appraises self-report paranoia questionnaires validated for use among the general population; the type of paranoia assessed, measurement or psychometric properties, and subsequent validation with clinical samples are all considered. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases. Study methodologies and measurement properties were evaluated according to COnsenus-based Standards for the selection of health-based Measurement Instruments (Mokkink et al., 2012). Twenty-six studies, describing the validation of nine paranoia-related questionnaires, were identified. Questionnaires were reviewed in relation to the hierarchy of paranoia; with 2 questionnaires assessing "low-level" paranoia, 4 assessing persecutory thoughts, and the remainder assessing paranoia across this continua. Questionnaires assessing the full hierarchy of paranoid thoughts, alongside associated dimensions such as preoccupation, conviction, and distress, offer the most comprehensive assessment of paranoia in both nonclinical and clinical populations. Of the measures which do this, the Green et al. (2008) Paranoid Thoughts Scale had the strongest evidence for its measurement properties and is, therefore, recommended as the most reliable and valid self-report assessment of paranoia currently available. However, this review illustrated that generally paranoia questionnaires lack high quality evidence for their measurement properties. Implications of these findings for clinical practice and research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Paranoid Disorders; Psychometrics; Self Report; Self-Assessment; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 30234319
DOI: 10.1037/pas0000645