-
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology May 2024To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the measurement properties of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO - ID: CRD42022303111. Electronic databases, reference lists, forward citation tracking, and contact with experts were used to identify studies. Eligible studies were reports developing or assessing a measurement property of a PROM measuring musculoskeletal condition specific-knowledge and/or beliefs. We assessed the methodological quality and measurement properties of included studies. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the quality of evidence for each PROM.
RESULTS
The literature search was performed from inception to 11th September 2023. Sixty records were included, reporting 290 individual studies, and provided information on 25 PROMs. Five PROMs presented sufficient structural validity, three presented sufficient cross-cultural validity, ten presented sufficient reliability, three presented sufficient criterion validity, six presented sufficient hypothesis-testing, and four presented sufficient responsiveness. No PROM presented sufficient evidence for content validity, internal consistency, and measurement error. Based on the available evidence, no PROM was classified as suitable for use according to the COSMIN recommendations. Twenty-four PROMs are potentially suitable for use, and one PROM is not recommended for use.
CONCLUSION
No PROM designed to assess knowledge and/or beliefs about musculoskeletal conditions meets the COSMIN criteria of suitable for use. Most PROMs identified in this systematic review were considered as potentially suitable for use and need further high-quality research to assess their measurement properties.
PubMed: 38810841
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111398 -
Hand Surgery & Rehabilitation Jun 2024This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis and in-depth analysis of the quality of the different cross-cultural versions of the MHQ. This study was...
This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis and in-depth analysis of the quality of the different cross-cultural versions of the MHQ. This study was conducted using Pubmed, Web of Science, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases to identify cross-cultural validation studies of the MHQ. Methodological quality, quality of evidence and criteria for good measurement properties of these studies were applied for each psychometric property. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers according to the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. A total of 493 articles were identified, of which 22 were included and 20 were analysed.Of the six properties analysed, responsiveness and hypothesis testing for construct validity had the highest methodological quality and quality of evidence, and met the criteria for good measurement properties. The lowest quality properties were measurement error and internal consistency. The different cross-cultural versions of the MHQ were found to be reliable, valid and able to detect clinical change. The lack of development of measurement error, formulation of an a priori hypothesis or structural validity affects the detection of small clinical changes and their discriminative capacity.
Topics: Humans; Psychometrics; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Surveys and Questionnaires; Reproducibility of Results; Hand; Disability Evaluation
PubMed: 38782363
DOI: 10.1016/j.hansur.2024.101715 -
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports Jun 2024Instruments to measure substance use stigma are emerging, however little is known regarding their psychometric properties. While research has evolved to view substance... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Instruments to measure substance use stigma are emerging, however little is known regarding their psychometric properties. While research has evolved to view substance use stigma as a context sensitive international phenomenon that is embedded within cultures, validated self-report measures are lacking and comprehensive reviews of the existing measures are extremely limited. In this systematic review of substance use stigma and shame measures, we aim to contextualize results from existing research, lay the groundwork for future measurement development research, and provide a thorough resource for research scientists currently designing studies to measure substance use stigma.
METHODS
We searched three databases using Boolean search terms for psychometric evaluations of measures of substance use stigma and shame and evaluated the quality/psychometric properties using an adaptation of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) systematic review guidelines.
RESULTS
We identified 18 measures of substance use stigma. Overall, most measures had minimal psychometric assessments and none of the measures met all domains of the COSMIN measure quality criteria. However, most studies reported satisfactory factor analyses and internal consistency scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Most measures of substance use stigma and shame had psychometric assessment across a limited range of criteria and no measures of structural substance use stigma were found. The most reported psychometric properties were structural validity and convergent validity. We suggest future researchers investigate test-retest reliability and cross-cultural validity for existing substance use stigma measures, as well as develop and evaluate novel measures assessing structural stigma of substance use.
PubMed: 38779475
DOI: 10.1016/j.dadr.2024.100237 -
Australian Critical Care : Official... May 2024We aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score used by nurses and physicians...
Comparison of Glasgow Coma Scale and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness score to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to intensive care units and emergency departments: A quantitative systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) score used by nurses and physicians to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and emergency departments (EDs).
REVIEW METHOD USED
This systematic review was guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and followed the reporting standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Statement.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was conducted using the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE.
REVIEW METHODS
All authors performed the study selection process, data collection, and assessment of quality. The following psychometric properties were addressed: inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity.
RESULTS
Six articles were included. The GCS and the FOUR scores demonstrated excellent reliability and very strong validity when used by nurses and physicians to assess the level of consciousness in patients admitted to the ICU and ED. The FOUR score demonstrated slightly higher overall reliability and validity than the GCS.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review indicates that the FOUR score is especially suitable for assessing the level of consciousness in patients admitted to the ICU and ED. The FOUR score demonstrated higher reliability and validity than the GCS, making it a promising alternative assessment scale, despite the GCS's longstanding use in clinical practice.
PubMed: 38777642
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2024.03.012 -
Eating and Weight Disorders : EWD May 2024Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a mental disorder for which hospitalization is frequently needed in case of severe medical and psychiatric consequences. We aim to describe the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a mental disorder for which hospitalization is frequently needed in case of severe medical and psychiatric consequences. We aim to describe the state-of-the-art inpatient treatment of AN in real-world reports.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature on the major medical databases, spanning from January 2011 to October 2023, was performed, using the keywords: "inpatient", "hospitalization" and "anorexia nervosa". Studies on pediatric populations and inpatients in residential facilities were excluded.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies (3501 subjects) were included, and nine themes related to the primary challenges faced in hospitalization settings were selected. About 81.48% of the studies detailed the clinical team, 51.85% cited the use of a psychotherapeutic model, 25.93% addressed motivation, 100% specified the treatment setting, 66.67% detailed nutrition and refeeding, 22.22% cited pharmacological therapy, 40.74% described admission or discharge criteria and 14.81% follow-up, and 51.85% used tests for assessment of the AN or psychopathology. Despite the factors defined by international guidelines, the data were not homogeneous and not adequately defined on admission/discharge criteria, pharmacological therapy, and motivation, while more comprehensive details were available for treatment settings, refeeding protocols, and psychometric assessments.
CONCLUSION
Though the heterogeneity among the included studies was considered, the existence of sparse criteria, objectives, and treatment modalities emerged, outlining a sometimes ambiguous report of hospitalization practices. Future studies must aim for a more comprehensive description of treatment approaches. This will enable uniform depictions of inpatient treatment, facilitating comparisons across different studies and establishing guidelines more grounded in scientific evidence.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level I, systematic review.
Topics: Humans; Anorexia Nervosa; Hospitalization; Inpatients; Adult; Psychotherapy
PubMed: 38767754
DOI: 10.1007/s40519-024-01665-5 -
Clinical Psychology Review Jun 2024Behaviours that challenge (BtC) are common in people with intellectual disability (ID) and associated with negative long-term outcomes. Reliable characterisation of BtC... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Measurement tools for behaviours that challenge and behavioural function in people with intellectual disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability.
Behaviours that challenge (BtC) are common in people with intellectual disability (ID) and associated with negative long-term outcomes. Reliable characterisation of BtC and behavioural function is integral to person-centred interventions. This systematic review and meta-analytic study quantitatively synthesised the evidence-base for the internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability of measures of BtC and behavioural function in people with ID (PROSPERO: CRD42021239042). Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO and MEDLINE were searched from inception to March 2024. Retrieved records (n = 3691) were screened independently to identify studies assessing eligible measurement properties in people with ID. Data extracted from 83 studies, across 29 measures, were synthesised in a series of random-effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses assessed the influence of methodological quality and study-level characteristics on pooled estimates. COSMIN criteria were used to evaluate the measurement properties of each measure. Pooled estimates ranged across measures: internal consistency (0.41-0.97), inter-rater reliability (0.29-0.93) and test-retest reliability (0.52-0.98). The quantity and quality of evidence varied substantially across measures; evidence was frequently unavailable or limited to a single study. Based on current evidence, candidate measures with the most evidence for internal consistency and reliability are discussed; however, continued assessment of measurement properties in ID populations is a key priority.
Topics: Humans; Intellectual Disability; Reproducibility of Results; Psychometrics
PubMed: 38718632
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102434 -
Psicologia, Reflexao E Critica :... May 2024Prospective memory is the ability to engage in an intention to be performed in the future. The main objective of this study was to identify instruments that assess both... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prospective memory is the ability to engage in an intention to be performed in the future. The main objective of this study was to identify instruments that assess both time-based and event-based prospective memory in children and adolescents and that have the potential to be clinically applicable.
METHOD
Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO) were searched to identify existing PM measures in original articles published until 2022. Literature searches were conducted using the following terms: (prospective memor* OR memor* for intentions) AND (neuropsychological assessment) AND (test* OR instrument* OR questionnaire* OR task*) AND (psychometric properties) AND (child* OR adolescen*). Relevant studies identified in the reference lists were also included in the review.
RESULTS
Ten instruments were identified and classified into three categories: (a) test batteries, (b) experimental procedures, and (c) questionnaires. All the instruments identified were described concerning their content and the psychometric properties available. Some of the instruments presented empirical evidence regarding validity and reliability, but no one provided normative data.
CONCLUSION
Besides the recent progress regarding studies publishing the development of a variety of novel measures, there are still many limitations surrounding the assessment of PM in the youth population because of the yet incipient psychometric properties presented by the majority of the PM instruments. Recommendations for a gold-standard PM instrument for assessing children and adolescents are provided.
PubMed: 38709384
DOI: 10.1186/s41155-024-00300-7 -
Psychosocial Intervention May 2024Dual-factor models of mental health propose that mental health includes two interrelated yet distinct dimensions - psychopathology and well-being. However, there is no... (Review)
Review
Dual-factor models of mental health propose that mental health includes two interrelated yet distinct dimensions - psychopathology and well-being. However, there is no systematization of the evidence following these models. This review aims to address the following research question: what evidence exists using dual-factor models? The current systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines on the following databases: Web-of-science, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC, and MEDLINE. The screening process resulted in 85 manuscripts that tested the assumptions of dual-factor models. Evidence revealed psychometric substantiation on the two-dimensionality of the dual-factor model, and 85% of the manuscripts provided evidence related to classifying participants into different mental health groups. Most studies showed that the Complete Mental Health or Positive Mental Health group is the most prevalent status group, and longitudinal evidence suggests that most participants (around 50%-64%) remain in the same group across time. Regarding the factors associated with mental health status groups, studies reviewed in this manuscript focus mainly on school-related outcomes, followed by supportive relationships, sociodemographic characteristics, psychological assets, individual attributes, physical health, and stressful events. This review highlights the importance of considering the two dimensions of mental health when conceptualizing, operationalizing, and measuring mental health. Fostering mental health must go beyond reducing symptoms, and practitioners would be able to include well-being-related interventions in their regular practice to improve individuals' mental health outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Mental Health; Mental Disorders; Models, Psychological; Psychometrics
PubMed: 38706709
DOI: 10.5093/pi2024a6 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) May 2024Psychometrical evaluation of persons of diverse contexts and different populations, including general or clinical. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Psychometrical evaluation of persons of diverse contexts and different populations, including general or clinical.
OBJECTIVE
This review study aimed to evaluate the psychometrics quality of resilience scales.
METHODS
International and Iranian databases were searched with MESH terms, including "psychometric", "validity", "reliability", "Connor-Davidson resilience scale", "Resilience scale", for published articles up to 1 February 2023. For each of the selected studies, the risk of bias was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. Then the COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the entire text of the article for methodological quality.
RESULTS
Considering the inclusion criteria, 80 documents were evaluated. According to the COSMIN's criteria for evaluating the risk of bias, the current study findings revealed the included studies' limitations in assessing the three versions of CD-RISC cross-cultural and content validity as well as their stability (e.g. conducting test re-test), whereas the majority of psychometric studies of CD-RISC-25, and CD-RISC-2 rated as very good or adequate in terms of structural validity. In terms of quality assessment of the included studies, the current study indicated that investigating the structural validity of the CD-RISC was mainly done based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis was absent.
CONCLUSION
The general result indicates the acceptability of the quality of the studies. However, concerns for measurement properties such as responsiveness and criterion validity as well as the standard error of measurement have been neglected.
PubMed: 38694299
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001968 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jun 2024Numerous user-related psychological dimensions can significantly influence the dynamics between humans and robots. For developers and researchers, it is crucial to have...
BACKGROUND
Numerous user-related psychological dimensions can significantly influence the dynamics between humans and robots. For developers and researchers, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of the psychometric properties of the available instruments used to assess these dimensions as they indicate the reliability and validity of the assessment.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to provide a systematic review of the instruments available for assessing the psychological aspects of the relationship between people and social and domestic robots, offering a summary of their psychometric properties and the quality of the evidence.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines across different databases: Scopus, PubMed, and IEEE Xplore. The search strategy encompassed studies meeting the following inclusion criteria: (1) the instrument could assess psychological dimensions related to social and domestic robots, including attitudes, beliefs, opinions, feelings, and perceptions; (2) the study focused on validating the instrument; (3) the study evaluated the psychometric properties of the instrument; (4) the study underwent peer review; and (5) the study was in English. Studies focusing on industrial robots, rescue robots, or robotic arms or those primarily concerned with technology validation or measuring anthropomorphism were excluded. Independent reviewers extracted instrument properties and the methodological quality of their evidence following the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines.
RESULTS
From 3828 identified records, the search strategy yielded 34 (0.89%) articles that validated and examined the psychometric properties of 27 instruments designed to assess individuals' psychological dimensions in relation to social and domestic robots. These instruments encompass a broad spectrum of psychological dimensions. While most studies predominantly focused on structural validity (24/27, 89%) and internal consistency (26/27, 96%), consideration of other psychometric properties was frequently inconsistent or absent. No instrument evaluated measurement error and responsiveness despite their significance in the clinical context. Most of the instruments (17/27, 63%) were targeted at both adults and older adults (aged ≥18 years). There was a limited number of instruments specifically designed for children, older adults, and health care contexts.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the strong interest in assessing psychological dimensions in the human-robot relationship, there is a need to develop new instruments using more rigorous methodologies and consider a broader range of psychometric properties. This is essential to ensure the creation of reliable and valid measures for assessing people's psychological dimensions regarding social and domestic robots. Among its limitations, this review included instruments applicable to both social and domestic robots while excluding those for other specific types of robots (eg, industrial robots).
Topics: Humans; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Robotics
PubMed: 38682783
DOI: 10.2196/55597