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

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.

Download Full-text

A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory

Innovation in Aging ◽

10.1093/geroni/igaa057.1185 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 368-368

Author(s):

Philippe Landreville ◽

Alexandra Champagne ◽

Patrick Gosselin

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Internal Consistency ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Short Form ◽

Self Report ◽

Test Reliability ◽

Cosmin Checklist ◽

Validity Indices

Abstract The Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI) is a widely used self-report measure of anxiety symptoms in older adults. Although much research has been conducted on the psychometric properties of the GAI, previous reviews have examined only a small proportion of studies and have not evaluated the methodological quality of this work. In view of this, we conducted a systematic review of the psychometric properties of the GAI and it’s short form (GAI-SF). Relevant studies (N = 31) 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 ‘‘COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments’’ (COSMIN) checklist. Based on the COSMIN checklist, internal consistency and test reliability were mostly rated as poorly assessed (63% and 72.7% of studies, respectively) and quality of studies examining structural validity was mostly fair (60% of studies). Both the GAI and GAI-SF 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. Substantial overlap with measures of depression was reported. While there is no consensus on the factorial structure of the GAI, the short version was found to be unidimensional. Our review therefore suggests that the GAI and GAI-SF have satisfactory psychometric properties while indicating that future efforts should aim to achieve a higher degree of methodological quality.

Download Full-text

Psychometric properties and feasibility of use of dementia specific quality of life instruments for use in care settings: a systematic review

International Psychogeriatrics ◽

10.1017/s1041610218002259 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 1-15 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Laura J. Hughes ◽

Nicolas Farina ◽

Thomas E. Page ◽

Naji Tabet ◽

Sube Banerjee

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Care Home ◽

Care Homes ◽

Cosmin Checklist ◽

Many Instruments ◽

The Uk ◽

Quality Instruments

ABSTRACTBackground:Over 400,000 people live in care home settings in the UK. One way of understanding and improving the quality of care provided is by measuring and understanding the quality of life (QoL) of those living in care homes. This review aimed to identify and examine the psychometric properties including feasibility of use of dementia-specific QoL measures developed or validated for use in care settings.Design:Systematic review.Methods:Instruments were identified using four electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL) and lateral search techniques. Searches were conducted in January 2017. Studies which reported on the development and/or validation of dementia specific QoL instruments for use in care settings written in English were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Feasibility was assessed using a checklist developed specifically for the review.Results:Six hundred and sixteen articles were identified in the initial search. After de-duplication, screening and further lateral searches were performed, 25 studies reporting on 9 dementia-specific QoL instruments for use in care home settings were included in the review. Limited evidence was available on the psychometric properties of many instruments identified. Higher-quality instruments were not easily accessible or had low feasibility of use.Conclusions:Few high-quality instruments of QoL validated for use in care home settings are readily or freely available. This review highlights the need to develop a well-validated measure of QoL for use within care homes that is also feasible and accessible.

Download Full-text

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

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1240-0 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 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

Download Full-text

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

Clinical Rehabilitation ◽

10.1177/0269215519862328 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 33 (11) ◽

pp. 1788-1799 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

Instruments for Measuring Satisfaction With Physical Therapy Care: A Systematic Review

Physical Therapy ◽

10.1093/ptj/pzaa111 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 100 (9) ◽

pp. 1690-1700

Author(s):

Daniel Gutiérrez-Sánchez ◽

David Pérez-Cruzado ◽

Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Physical Therapy ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Selection Of

Abstract Objective Several instruments to measure patient satisfaction have been developed to assess satisfaction with physical therapy care. The selection of the most appropriate instrument is very important. The purpose of this study was to identify instruments for assessing satisfaction with physical therapy care and their psychometric properties and to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on psychometric properties. Methods A systematic search was conducted in ProQuest Medline, SciELO, ProQuest PsycINFO, Theseus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Articles published from 1990 to 2019, in English and Spanish, were used as limits. This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. The articles were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4-point checklist. Eighteen studies were included. Results Nine instruments were found to be specifically designed to assess satisfaction with physical therapy care. The methodological quality of the studies was “fair” for most of the psychometric characteristics analyzed (43 items), with 24 properties scored as “poor,” 5 as “good,” and 3 as “excellent.” Conclusions Different instrument characteristics—such as the scope and population with which the instrument will be used, its dimensions, the number of items, and the evidence shown in the evaluation of each psychometric property—should be considered by clinicians and researchers to decide which instrument is the best to measure the construct of patient satisfaction with physical therapy. Impact Evaluating patient satisfaction is very useful in clinical practice at the hospital, community, and primary care levels. Physical therapist clinicians and researchers can use this systematic review to select instruments whose characteristics will best measure their patients’ satisfaction with physical therapy care.

Download Full-text

Psychometric properties of measures of upper limb activity performance in adults with and without spasticity undergoing neurorehabilitation–A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0246288 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (2) ◽

pp. e0246288

Author(s):

Shannon Pike ◽

Anne Cusick ◽

Kylie Wales ◽

Lisa Cameron ◽

Lynne Turner-Stokes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Upper Limb ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Neurological Impairment ◽

Measurement Quality ◽

Measurement Tools ◽

Limb Spasticity ◽

Psychometric Studies

Introduction This systematic review appraises the measurement quality of tools which assess activity and/or participation in adults with upper limb spasticity arising from neurological impairment, including methodological quality of the psychometric studies. Differences in the measurement quality of the tools for adults with a neurological impairment, but without upper limb spasticity, is also presented. Methods 29 measurement tools identified in a published review were appraised in this systematic review. For each identified tool, we searched 3 databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) to identify psychometric studies completed with neurorehabilitation samples. Methodological quality of instrument evaluations was assessed with use of the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Synthesis of ratings allowed an overall rating of the psychometric evidence for each measurement tool to be calculated. Results 149 articles describing the development or evaluation of psychometric properties of 22 activity and/or participation measurement tools were included. Evidence specific to tool use for adults with spasticity was identified within only 15 of the 149 articles and provided evidence for 9 measurement tools only. Overall, COSMIN appraisal highlighted a lack of evidence of measurement quality. Synthesis of ratings demonstrated all measures had psychometric weaknesses or gaps in evidence (particularly for use of tools with adults with spasticity). Conclusions The systematic search, appraisal and synthesis revealed that currently there is insufficient measurement quality evidence to recommend one tool over another. Notwithstanding this conclusion, newer tools specifically designed for use with people with neurological conditions who have upper limb spasticity, have emergent measurement properties that warrant further research. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014013190.

Download Full-text

Measuring implementation outcomes: An updated systematic review of measures’ psychometric properties

Implementation Research and Practice ◽

10.1177/2633489520936644 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1 ◽

pp. 263348952093664 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kayne Mettert ◽

Cara Lewis ◽

Caitlin Dorsey ◽

Heather Halko ◽

Bryan Weiner

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Care ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Behavioral Health ◽

Internal Consistency ◽

Behavioral Health Care ◽

Research And Practice ◽

Implementation Outcomes ◽

New Treatment

Background: Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe measurement gap in the field. Now, we offer an update with this enhanced systematic review to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of eight implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care. Methods: The systematic review methodology is described in detail in a previously published protocol paper and summarized here. The review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales). Results: Searches identified 150 outcomes measures of which 48 were deemed unsuitable for rating and thus excluded, leaving 102 measures for review. We identified measures of acceptability ( N = 32), adoption ( N = 26), appropriateness ( N = 6), cost ( N = 31), feasibility ( N = 18), fidelity ( N = 18), penetration ( N = 23), and sustainability ( N = 14). Information about internal consistency and norms were available for most measures (59%). Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency and norms ranged from “adequate” to “excellent.” Ratings for other psychometric properties ranged mostly from “poor” to “good.” Conclusion: While measures of implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care (including mental health, substance use, and other addictive behaviors) are unevenly distributed and exhibit mostly unknown psychometric quality, the data reported in this article show an overall improvement in availability of psychometric information. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice. Plain language abstract: When implementing an evidence-based treatment into practice, it is important to assess several outcomes to gauge how effectively it is being implemented. Outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness may offer insight into why providers do not adopt a new treatment. Similarly, outcomes such as fidelity and penetration may provide important context for why a new treatment did not achieve desired effects. It is important that methods to measure these outcomes are accurate and consistent. Without accurate and consistent measurement, high-quality evaluations cannot be conducted. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify questionnaires (referred to as measures) that ask staff at various levels (e.g., providers, supervisors) questions related to implementation outcomes, and to evaluate the quality of these measures. We identified 150 measures and rated the quality of their evidence with the goal of recommending the best measures for future use. Our findings suggest that a great deal of work is needed to generate evidence for existing measures or build new measures to achieve confidence in our implementation evaluations.

Download Full-text

The quality of mental health literacy measurement tools evaluating the stigma of mental illness: a systematic review

Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences ◽

10.1017/s2045796017000178 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 27 (5) ◽

pp. 433-462 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Y. Wei ◽

P. McGrath ◽

J. Hayden ◽

S. Kutcher

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Construct Validity ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Internal Consistency ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Measurement Tools ◽

Stigma Of Mental Illness

Aims.Stigma of mental illness is a significant barrier to receiving mental health care. However, measurement tools evaluating stigma of mental illness have not been systematically assessed for their quality. We conducted a systematic review to critically appraise the methodological quality of studies assessing psychometrics of stigma measurement tools and determined the level of evidence of overall quality of psychometric properties of included tools.Methods.We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and ERIC databases for eligible studies. We conducted risk-of-bias analysis with the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist, rating studies as excellent, good, fair or poor. We further rated the level of evidence of the overall quality of psychometric properties, combining the study quality and quality of each psychometric property, as: strong, moderate, limited, conflicting or unknown.Results.We identified 117 studies evaluating psychometric properties of 101 tools. The quality of specific studies varied, with ratings of: excellent (n = 5); good (mostly on internal consistency (n = 67)); fair (mostly on structural validity, n = 89 and construct validity, n = 85); and poor (mostly on internal consistency, n = 36). The overall quality of psychometric properties also varied from: strong (mostly content validity, n = 3), moderate (mostly internal consistency, n = 55), limited (mostly structural validity, n = 55 and construct validity, n = 46), conflicting (mostly test–retest reliability, n = 9) and unknown (mostly internal consistency, n = 36).Conclusions.We identified 12 tools demonstrating limited evidence or above for (+, ++, +++) all their properties, 69 tools reaching these levels of evidence for some of their properties, and 20 tools that did not meet the minimum level of evidence for all of their properties. We note that further research on stigma tool development is needed to ensure appropriate application.

Download Full-text

Health-related quality of life in Iranian adolescents: a psychometric evaluation of the self-report form of the PedsQL 4.0 and an investigation of gender and age differences

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes ◽

10.1186/s12955-021-01742-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Habib Hadianfard ◽

Behnaz Kiani ◽

Mahla Azizzadeh Herozi ◽

Fatemeh Mohajelin ◽

John T. Mitchell

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Internal Consistency ◽

Convergent Validity ◽

Age Effects ◽

Self Report ◽

Gender And Age ◽

Pedsql 4.0 ◽

Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background Research on the psychometric properties of the Persian self-report form of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Version 4.0 (PedsQL 4.0) in adolescents has several gaps (e.g., convergent validity) that limit its clinical application and therefore the cross-cultural impact of this measure. This study aimed at investigating the psychometric properties of the PedsQL 4.0 and the effects of gender and age on quality of life in Iranian adolescents. Method The PedsQL 4.0 was administered to 326 adolescents (12–17 years). A subsample of 115 adolescents completed the scale two weeks after the first assessment. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), correlation of the PedsQL 4.0 with the Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale-Self-report (WFIRS-S), and Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis were conducted to examine validity. Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s Omega, and Intra class correlation (ICC) were calculated as well to examine reliability. Gender and age effects were also evaluated. Results Internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the total PedsQL 4.0 scale was .92 and .87, respectively. The PedsQL 4.0 scores showed negative moderate to strong correlations with the WFIRS-S total scale. The four-factor model of the PedsQL 4.0 was not fully supported by the CFA—the root mean square error of approximation and the comparative fit index showed a mediocre and poor fit, respectively. IRT analysis indicated that all items of the PedsQL 4.0 fit with the scale and most of them showed good discrimination. The items and total scale provided more information in the lower levels of the latent trait. Males showed significantly higher scores than females in physical and emotional functioning, psychosocial health, and total scale. Adolescents with lower ages showed better quality of life than those with higher ages in all scores of the PedsQL 4.0. Conclusion The PedsQL 4.0 showed good psychometric properties with regard to internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity in Iranian adolescents, which supports its use in clinical settings among Persian-speaking adolescents. However, factor structure according to our CFA indicates that future work should address how to improve fit. In addition, studies that include PedsQL 4.0 should consider gender and age effects were reported.

Download Full-text

Protocol for a Systematic Review Exploring the Psychometric Properties of Health and Wellbeing Measures Used With Adolescents Experiencing Intellectual Disabilities.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-397339/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Stephanie Maguire ◽

Jenny Davison ◽

Marian McLaughlin ◽

Victoria Simms

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intellectual Disabilities ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Service Providers ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Intervention Development ◽

Future Health ◽

Health And Wellbeing

Abstract Background Whilst there are studies that have systematically reviewed the psychometric properties of Quality-of-Life measures for children and young people experiencing intellectual disabilities, these narrowly focus on disease or health conditions. The objective of this planned systematic review is therefore to collate, summarise and critically appraise the psychometric properties of health and wellbeing measures used with adolescents (aged 11–16) with an intellectual disability. Methods We designed and registered a study protocol for a systematic review of studies which explores the psychometric properties of health and wellbeing measures used with adolescents experiencing intellectual disabilities. Electronic databases including PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and ERIC will be searched using predefined search terms to identify relevant studies. Quantitative and mixed-methods studies, and studies published in peer-reviewed journals or grey literature will be included. Review papers, editorials and case studies will be excluded. Eligible studies should identify self and/or proxy reported health and wellbeing measures which assess health and wellbeing among adolescents with intellectual disabilities. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed by applying the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. The quality of the evidence (i.e., the total body of evidence used for the overall ratings on each psychometric property of an instrument) will be evaluated in accordance with the GRADE guidelines. Discussion This systematic review will be among the first to systematically explore the psychometric properties of health and wellbeing measures used with adolescents experiencing intellectual disabilities. By providing evidence-based knowledge about measures being used in health and wellbeing research amongst this population, and more importantly how reliable and valid these measures are, the most suitable for use will be identified. Our findings will be of potential interest to clinicians, researchers and service providers who need information about the methodological quality and the characteristics of measures to make informed decisions about the most reliable and valid tool for a specific purpose. The findings from this study will contribute to the knowledge surrounding available and appropriate measures to use for measuring the health and wellbeing of adolescents with intellectual disabilities, which are necessary to inform intervention development and future health policy. Systematic Review Registration The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The registration number is: CRD42021231697.

Download Full-text