A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Multidimensional Trait Perfectionism Self-Report Measures

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-58
Author(s):  
Alice Lo ◽  
Caroline Hunt ◽  
Maree J. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Adequate Internal Consistency ◽  
Adequate Measurement ◽  
Present Systematic Review

AbstractDifferent and evolving conceptualisations of perfectionism have led to the development of numerous perfectionism measures in an attempt to capture the true representations of the construct. It is, therefore, important to ensure that these instruments are valid and reliable. The present systematic review examined the literature for the psychometric properties of the most commonly used general multidimensional trait perfectionism self-report measures. Relevant studies were identified by a systematic electronic search of academic databases. A total of 349 studies were identified, with 38 of these meeting inclusion criteria. The psychometric properties presented in each of these studies were subjected to assessment using a standardised protocol. All studies were evaluated by two reviewers independently. Results indicated that while none of the included measures demonstrated adequacy across all of the nine psychometric properties assessed, most were found to possess adequate internal consistency and construct validity. The absence of evidence to support adequate measurement properties over a number of domains for the measures included in this review may be attributed to the criteria of adequacy used, with some appearing overly strict and less relevant to perfectionism measures. Clinical and research relevance of the present findings and directions for future research are discussed.

scholarly journals Psychometric Properties of Self-Report Concussion Scales and Checklists

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara C. Valovich McLeod ◽  
Candace Leach
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head Injury ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Symptom Checklist ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Symptom Scale ◽  
Symptom Inventory

Reference/Citation: Alla S, Sullivan SJ, Hale L, McCrory P. Self-report scales/checklists for the measurement of concussion symptoms: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43 (suppl 1):i3–i12. Clinical Question: Which self-report symptom scales or checklists are psychometrically sound for clinical use to assess sport-related concussion? Data Sources: Articles available in full text, published from the establishment of each database through December 2008, were identified from PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and AMED. Search terms included brain concussion, signs or symptoms, and athletic injuries, in combination with the AND Boolean operator, and were limited to studies published in English. The authors also hand searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. Additional searches of books, conference proceedings, theses, and Web sites of commercial scales were done to provide additional information about the psychometric properties and development for those scales when needed in articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Study Selection: Articles were included if they identified all the items on the scale and the article was either an original research report describing the use of scales in the evaluation of concussion symptoms or a review article that discussed the use or development of concussion symptom scales. Only articles published in English and available in full text were included. Data Extraction: From each study, the following information was extracted by the primary author using a standardized protocol: study design, publication year, participant characteristics, reliability of the scale, and details of the scale or checklist, including name, number of items, time of measurement, format, mode of report, data analysis, scoring, and psychometric properties. A quality assessment of included studies was done using 16 items from the Downs and Black checklist1 and assessed reporting, internal validity, and external validity. Main Results: The initial database search identified 421 articles. After 131 duplicate articles were removed, 290 articles remained and were added to 17 articles found during the hand search, for a total of 307 articles; of those, 295 were available in full text. Sixty articles met the inclusion criteria and were used in the systematic review. The quality of the included studies ranged from 9 to 15 points out of a maximum quality score of 17. The included articles were published between 1995 and 2008 and included a collective total of 5864 concussed athletes and 5032 nonconcussed controls, most of whom participated in American football. The majority of the studies were descriptive studies monitoring the resolution of concussive self-report symptoms compared with either a preseason baseline or healthy control group, with a smaller number of studies (n = 8) investigating the development of a scale. The authors initially identified 20 scales that were used among the 60 included articles. Further review revealed that 14 scales were variations of the Pittsburgh Steelers postconcussion scale (the Post-Concussion Scale, Post-Concussion Scale: Revised, Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT, Post-Concussion Symptom Scale: Vienna, Graded Symptom Checklist [GSC], Head Injury Scale, McGill ACE Post-Concussion Symptoms Scale, and CogState Sport Symptom Checklist), narrowing down to 6 core scales, which the authors discussed further. The 6 core scales were the Pittsburgh Steelers Post-Concussion Scale (17 items), Post-Concussion Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (10 items), Concussion Resolution Index postconcussion questionnaire (15 items), Signs and Symptoms Checklist (34 items), Sport Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT) postconcussion symptom scale (25 items), and Concussion Symptom Inventory (12 items). Each of the 6 core scales includes symptoms associated with sport-related concussion; however, the number of items on each scale varied. A 7-point Likert scale was used on most scales, with a smaller number using a dichotomous (yes/no) classification. Only 7 of the 20 scales had published psychometric properties, and only 1 scale, the Concussion Symptom Inventory, was empirically driven (Rasch analysis), with development of the scale occurring before its clinical use. Internal consistency (Cronbach α) was reported for the Post-Concussion Scale (.87), Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 22-item (.88–.94), Head Injury Scale 9-item (.78), and Head Injury Scale 16-item (.84). Test-retest reliability has been reported only for the Post-Concussion Scale (Spearman r = .55) and the Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 21-item (Pearson r = .65). With respect to validity, the SCAT postconcussion scale has demonstrated face and content validity, the Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 22-item and Head Injury Scale 9-item have reported construct validity, and the Head Injury Scale 9-item and 16-item have published factorial validity. Sensitivity and specificity have been reported only with the GSC (0.89 and 1.0, respectively) and the Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 21-item when combined with the neurocognitive component of ImPACT (0.819 and 0.849, respectively). Meaningful change scores were reported for the Post-Concussion Scale (14.8 points), Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 22-item (6.8 points), and Post-Concussion Scale: ImPACT 21-item (standard error of the difference = 7.17; 80% confidence interval = 9.18). Conclusions: Numerous scales exist for measuring the number and severity of concussion-related symptoms, with most evolving from the neuropsychology literature pertaining to head-injured populations. However, very few of these were created in a systematic manner that follows scale development processes and have published psychometric properties. Clinicians need to understand these limitations when choosing and using a symptom scale for inclusion in a concussion assessment battery. Future authors should assess the underlying constructs and measurement properties of currently available scales and use the ever-increasing prospective data pools of concussed athlete information to develop scales following appropriate, systematic processes.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a COSMIN systematic review protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Williams ◽  
Bronwyn Beovich
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Jefferson Scale Of Empathy

Abstract Background Empathy is an important characteristic to possess for healthcare professionals. It has been found to improve communication between professionals and patients and to improve clinical health outcomes. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) was developed to measure this quality and has been used extensively, and psychometrically appraised, with a variety of cohorts and in different cultural environments. However, no study has been undertaken to systematically examine the methodological quality of studies which have assessed psychometric factors of the JSE. This systematic review will examine the quality of published papers that have reported on psychometric factors of the JSE. Methods A systematic review of studies which report on the psychometric properties of the JSE will be conducted. We will use a predefined search strategy to identify studies meeting the following eligibility criteria: original data is reported on for at least one of the psychometric measurement properties described in the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist, examines the JSE in a healthcare cohort (using the student, physician or health profession versions of the JSE), and is published from January 2001 and in the English language. Conference abstracts, editorials and grey literature will be excluded. Six electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL) will be systematically searched for articles meeting these criteria and studies will be assessed for eligibility by two review authors. The methodological quality of included papers will be examined using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Discussion A narrative description of the findings will be presented along with summary tables. Recommendations for use of the JSE with various cohorts and circumstances will be offered which may inform future research in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018111412

scholarly journals Systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for rheumatoid arthritis in the foot and ankle

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 1788-1799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Belen Ortega-Avila ◽  
Laura Ramos-Petersen ◽  
Pablo Cervera-Garvi ◽  
Christopher J Nester ◽  
José Miguel Morales-Asencio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Patient Reported

Objective: To identify self-reported outcome measures specific to the foot and ankle in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and to investigate the methodological quality and psychometric properties of these measures. Method: A systematic review focusing on patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Setting: The search was conducted in the PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PEDro and Google Scholar databases, based on the following inclusion criteria: population (with rheumatoid arthritis) > 18 years; psychometric or clinimetric validation studies of patient-reported outcomes specific to the foot and ankle, in different languages, with no time limit. Two of the present authors independently assessed the quality of the studies located and extracted the relevant data. Terwee’s criteria and the COSMIN checklist were employed to ensure adequate methodological quality. Results: Of the initial 431 studies considered, 14 met the inclusion criteria, representing 7,793 patients (56.8 years). These instruments were grouped into three dimensions (pain, perceived health status and quality of life and disability). The time to complete any of the PROMs varies around 15 minutes. PROMs criterias with the worst scores by COSMIN, 92.85% and 85.71% were criterion validity, measurement error, internal consistency and responsiveness. 28.57% of PROMs were compared with the measurement properties. Conclusion: the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score achieved the highest number of positive criteria (according to Terwee and COSMIN), and is currently the most appropriate for patients with Rheumatoid arthritis.

Assessing recovery from schizophrenia as an individual process. A review of self-report instruments

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Cavelti ◽  
S. Kvrgic ◽  
E.-M. Beck ◽  
J. Kossowsky ◽  
R. Vauth
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Personal Recovery ◽  
Clinical Recovery ◽  
The Individual

AbstractObjectiveStudies investigating indicators of recovery from schizophrenia yielded two concepts of recovery. The first is the reduction of psychiatric symptoms and functional disabilities (‘clinical recovery’), while the second describes the individual adaptation process to the threat posed to the individual sense of self by the disorder and its negative consequences (‘personal recovery’). Evidence suggests that both perceptions contribute substantially to the understanding of recovery and require specific assessment and therapy. While current reviews of measures of clinical recovery exist, measures of personal recovery have yet to be investigated. Considering the steadily growing literature on recovery, this article gives an update about existing measures assessing personal recovery.MethodA literature search for instruments was performed using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO&PSYNDEXPlus, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were: (1) quantitative self-report measures; (2) specifically developed for adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder or at least applied to individuals suffering from severe mental illness; (3) empirically tested psychometric properties and/or published in a peer-reviewed, English-language journal. Instruments were evaluated with regard to psychometric properties (validity and reliability) and issues of application (user and administrator friendliness, translations).ResultsThirteen instruments met the inclusion criteria. They were individually described and finally summarized in a table reflecting the pros and cons of each instrument. This may enable the reader to make an evidence-based choice for a questionnaire for a specific application.ConclusionThe Recovery Assessment Scale is possibly the best currently available measure of personal recovery when all evaluation criteria are included. However, the ratings listed in the current paper depended on the availability of information and the quality of available reports of previous assessment of the measurement properties. Considering the significant amount of information lacking and inconsistent findings, further research on the reviewed measures is perhaps more important than the development of new measures of personal recovery.

scholarly journals Impact of Vibration on the Levels of Biomarkers: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 030157422110195
Author(s):  
Ashish Agrawal ◽  
TM Chou
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Tooth Movement ◽  
Orthodontic Tooth Movement ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Proquest Dissertation

Introduction: The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effect of vibrational force on biomarkers for orthodontic tooth movement. Methods: An electronic search was conducted for relevant studies (up to December 31, 2020) on the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Wiley Library, and ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database. Hand searching of selected orthodontic journals was also undertaken. The selected studies were assessed for the risk of bias in Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool. The “traffic plot” and “weighted plot” risk of bias distribution are designed in the RoB 2 tool. The 2 authors extracted the data and analyzed it. Results: Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The risks of biases were high for 4, low and some concern for other 2 studies. The biomarkers, medium, device, frequency and duration of device, as well as other data were extracted. The outcomes of the studies were found to be heterogenous. Conclusion: One study showed highly statistically significant levels of IL-1 beta with <.001. Rate of tooth movement was correlated with levels of released biomarkers under the influence of vibrational force in 3 studies, but it was found to be significant only in 1 study. It was further observed that vibration does not have any significant reduction in pain and discomfort.

scholarly journals Measuring Subjective Sleep Quality: A Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 1082
Author(s):  
Marco Fabbri ◽  
Alessia Beracci ◽  
Monica Martoni ◽  
Debora Meneo ◽  
Lorenzo Tonetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Poor Sleep ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
Factorial Structure ◽  
Poor Sleep Quality

Sleep quality is an important clinical construct since it is increasingly common for people to complain about poor sleep quality and its impact on daytime functioning. Moreover, poor sleep quality can be an important symptom of many sleep and medical disorders. However, objective measures of sleep quality, such as polysomnography, are not readily available to most clinicians in their daily routine, and are expensive, time-consuming, and impractical for epidemiological and research studies., Several self-report questionnaires have, however, been developed. The present review aims to address their psychometric properties, construct validity, and factorial structure while presenting, comparing, and discussing the measurement properties of these sleep quality questionnaires. A systematic literature search, from 2008 to 2020, was performed using the electronic databases PubMed and Scopus, with predefined search terms. In total, 49 articles were analyzed from the 5734 articles found. The psychometric properties and factor structure of the following are reported: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Mini-Sleep Questionnaire (MSQ), Jenkins Sleep Scale (JSS), Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ), SLEEP-50 Questionnaire, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). As the most frequently used subjective measurement of sleep quality, the PSQI reported good internal reliability and validity; however, different factorial structures were found in a variety of samples, casting doubt on the usefulness of total score in detecting poor and good sleepers. The sleep disorder scales (AIS, ISI, MSQ, JSS, LSEQ and SLEEP-50) reported good psychometric properties; nevertheless, AIS and ISI reported a variety of factorial models whereas LSEQ and SLEEP-50 appeared to be less useful for epidemiological and research settings due to the length of the questionnaires and their scoring. The MSQ and JSS seemed to be inexpensive and easy to administer, complete, and score, but further validation studies are needed. Finally, the ESS had good internal consistency and construct validity, while the main challenges were in its factorial structure, known-group difference and estimation of reliable cut-offs. Overall, the self-report questionnaires assessing sleep quality from different perspectives have good psychometric properties, with high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, as well as convergent/divergent validity with sleep, psychological, and socio-demographic variables. However, a clear definition of the factor model underlying the tools is recommended and reliable cut-off values should be indicated in order for clinicians to discriminate poor and good sleepers.

scholarly journals 459 - Psychometric properties of the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory : A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 180-180
Author(s):  
Philippe Landreville ◽  
Alexandra Champagne ◽  
Patrick Gosselin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
The Body ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Test Reliability ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Validity Indices

Background.The Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI) is a widely used self-report measure of anxiety symptoms in older adults. Much research has been conducted on the psychometric properties of the GAI in various populations and using different language versions. Previous reviews of this literature have examined only a small proportion of studies in light of the body of research currently available and have not evaluated the methodological quality of this research. We conducted a systematic review of the psychometric properties of the GAI.Method.Relevant studies (N = 30) were retrieved through a search of electronic databases (Pubmed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar) and a hand search. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the ‘‘COnsensusbased Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments’’ (COSMIN) checklist.Results.Based on the COSMIN checklist, internal consistency and test reliability were mostly rated as poorly assessed (62.1% and 70% of studies, respectively) and quality of studies examining structural validity was mostly fair (60% of studies). The GAI showed adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Convergent validity indices were highest with measures of generalized anxiety and lowest with instruments that include somatic symptoms. A substantial overlap with measures of depression was reported. While there was no consensus on the factorial structure of the GAI, several studies found it to be unidimensional.Conclusions.The GAI presents satisfactory psychometric properties. However, future efforts should aim to achieve a higher degree of methodological quality.

Explanatory Theories of Intimate Partner Homicide Perpetration: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 152483802095380
Author(s):  
Laurie M. Graham ◽  
Rebecca J. Macy ◽  
Cynthia F. Rizo ◽  
Sandra L. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ecological Model ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Intimate Partner Homicide ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Social Ecological ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
The Social

Theories play an important role in guiding intimate partner homicide (IPH) prevention research and practice. This study is the first systematic review of theories employed to explain why someone might kill their intimate partner. This review used rigorous methods to locate and synthesize literature that described explanatory theories of IPH perpetration. Using set search terms, we systematically searched 15 databases and repositories for theory-focused documents (i.e., theory papers or analyses) published in English from 2003 to 2018. Eighteen documents met these inclusion criteria and identified 22 individual theories that seek to explain why people might kill their intimate partners. These theories fell within four broader theoretical perspectives: feminist, evolutionary, sociological/criminological, and combined. Key tenets and focal populations of these 22 theories were identified and organized into a compendium of explanatory theories of IPH perpetration. Potential strengths and limitations of each of the four perspectives were described. Review findings underscored the likely importance of addressing gender as well as risk and protective factors at all levels of the social ecological model in efforts to understand IPH perpetration. The review findings highlighted the need for both integrated theories and a broader conceptual organizing framework to guide work aimed at IPH perpetration prevention to leverage the strengths of disparate theoretical perspectives. With the goal of informing future research, a preliminary iteration of such a framework is presented.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review on Attachment and Sleep at Preschool Age

Children ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 895
Author(s):  
Catarina Perpétuo ◽  
Eva Diniz ◽  
Manuela Veríssimo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Attachment Security ◽  
Biological Process ◽  
Sleep Problems ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Preschool Age ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Parent Child Relationships ◽  
Present Systematic Review

Sleep is a biological process that impacts nearly every domain of a child’s life. Sleep-wake regulation influences and it is highly influenced by developmental variables related to parent-child relationships, such as attachment. The main goal of the present systematic review is to analyze and integrate the findings of empirical studies investigating the relations between attachment and sleep in preschool age, a period marked by important developmental changes that challenge both attachment system and sleep-wake regulation. A database search was performed using a combination of relevant keywords, leading to the identification of 524 articles, with 19 manuscripts assessed for eligibility; finally, seven studies (2344 children) were included. Overall, the findings were not consistent, with some studies reporting significant associations between attachment security and sleep quality, as well as between attachment insecurity and sleep problems, whereas others did not find significant associations. The results are discussed in light of the available theoretical models and integrated in the context of measurement approaches to attachment and sleep heterogeneity, aiming to guide future research on the topic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document