Informant-based assessment instruments for dementia and their measurement properties in persons with intellectual disability: systematic review protocol

IntroductionPersons with intellectual disability (ID) are at a higher risk of developing dementia than persons without ID, with an expected earlier onset. Assessment methods for the general population cannot be applied for persons with ID due to their pre-existing intellectual and functional impairments. As there is no agreed-upon measure to assess dementia in persons with ID, multiple instruments for this purpose have been developed and adapted in the past decades. This review aimed to identify all available informant-based instruments for the assessment of dementia in persons with ID, to evaluate and compare them according to their measurement properties, and to provide a recommendation for the most suitable instruments. Additionally, an overview of the amount and quality of research on these instruments will be provided.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will adhere to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and use a set of characteristics developed for assessment instruments for persons with ID, the Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders. Two comprehensive, systematic literature searches will be applied in 10 international databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be done according to COSMIN guidelines. We will apply the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the overall quality of the available evidence.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics statement is needed for this study. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at international conferences.

Download Full-text

Instruments for measuring nursing research competence: a protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042325 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e042325

Author(s):

Qirong Chen ◽

Chongmei Huang ◽

Aimee R Castro ◽

Siyuan Tang

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Target Population ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Nursing Research ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Research Competence ◽

Scoping Reviews

IntroductionNursing research competence of nursing personnel has received much attention in recent years, as nursing has developed as both an independent academic discipline and an evidence-based practiing profession. Instruments for appraising nursing research competence are important, as they can be used to assess nursing research competence of the target population, showing changes of this variable over time and measuring the effectiveness of interventions for improving nursing research competence. There is a need to map the current state of the science of the instruments for nursing research competence, and to identify well validated and reliable instruments. This paper describes a protocol for a scoping review to identify, evaluate, compare and summarise the instruments designed to measure nursing research competence.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and Levac et al’s additional recommendations for applying this framework. The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The protocol is registered through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ksh43/). Eight English databases and two Chinese databases will be searched between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2020 to retrieve manuscripts which include instrument(s) of nursing research competence. The literature screening and data extraction will be conducted by two researchers, independently. A third researcher will be involved when consensus is needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies on measurement properties of the instruments, as well as the quality of all the instruments identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed. We will disseminate the findings through a conference focusing on nursing research competence and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Download Full-text

Tools to Assess the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials in Systematic Reviews: a Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

10.21203/rs.3.rs-830181/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Andres Jung ◽

Julia Balzer ◽

Tobias Braun ◽

Kerstin Luedtke

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

External Validity ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews and to evaluate the quality of evidence regarding their measurement properties.Methods: A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies aiming to investigate the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Results: 34 publications reporting on the development or validation of 26 included tools were included. For 62% of the included tools, there was no evidence of any measurement property. For the remaining tools, reliability was assessed most frequently. Reliability was judged as “sufficient” for three tools (very low quality of evidence). Content validity was rated as “sufficient” for one tool (moderate quality of evidence).Conclusions: Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a new one. There is a need for more research for this purpose.Trial registration: Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D

Download Full-text

Observational Pain Assessment Instruments for Use With Nonverbal Patients at the End-of-life: A Systematic Review

Journal of Palliative Care ◽

10.1177/0825859718816073 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 34 (4) ◽

pp. 255-266 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Diane Tapp ◽

Sara Chenacher ◽

Ngangue Patrice Alain Gérard ◽

Philippe Bérubé-Mercier ◽

Celine Gelinas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

End Of Life ◽

Pain Assessment ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Severe Illness ◽

Assessment Instruments ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement

Purpose: To review studies pertaining to the reliability and validity of observational pain assessment tools for use with nonverbal patients at the end-of-life, a field of research not documented by previous systematic reviews. Methods: Databases (PubMed, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were systematically searched for studies from study inception to February 21, 2016 (update in May 9, 2018). Two independent reviewers screened study titles, abstracts, and full texts according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Reviewers also extracted the psychometrics properties of studies of observational pain assessment instruments dedicated to a noncommunicative population in palliative care or at the end-of-life. A comprehensive quality assessment was conducted using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) to derive poor, fair, good or excellent ratings for the psychometric tests reported in each study. Results: Four studies linked to 4 different tools met the inclusion criteria. Study populations included dementia, palliative care and severe illness in the context of intensive care. All the studies included in this review obtained poor COSMIN ratings overall. Conclusions: At this point, it is impossible to recommend any of the tools evaluated given the low number and quality of the studies. Other analyses and studies need to be conducted to develop, adapt, or further validate observational pain instruments for the end-of-life population, regardless of the disease.

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 MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS: CONCEPTUAL BASIS AND EVALUATION METHODS - PART II

Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem ◽

10.1590/1980-265x-tce-2017-0311 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maria Elena Echevarría-Guanilo ◽

Natália Gonçalves ◽

Priscila Juceli Romanoski

Keyword(s):

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Theoretical Study ◽

Criterion Validity ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Measuring Instruments ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Selection Of

ABSTRACT Objective: to present and discuss conceptual bases and methods for evaluating the content, construct and criterion validity of self-reported measuring instruments. Method: theoretical study based on the concepts of the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments and those evaluated in the Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes, which includes concepts of instrument assessment to assess patient-reported outcomes. Results: validity is significant for the methodological quality of an instrument; however, it is a relative criterion, since it depends on the adequacy of the instrument to be measured. There are three different validity measurement properties described in the literature: content, construct and criterion validity. Conclusions: as validity is an important property, it is recommended that it be verified in studies that aimed to develop new scales and in those that adapted and validated for another culture or population.

Download Full-text

Psychometric properties of self-reported financial toxicity measures in cancer survivors: a systematic review protocol using COSMIN methodology

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036365 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (5) ◽

pp. e036365

Author(s):

Zheng Zhu ◽

Weijie Xing ◽

Lucylynn Lizarondo ◽

Jian Peng ◽

Yan Hu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cancer Survivors ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Public Healthcare ◽

Financial Toxicity ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Patient Reported

IntroductionDue to the higher costs associated with advancements in cancer treatment and longer duration of cancer survivorship, increasing financial toxicity has become a great threat to survivors, caregivers and public healthcare systems. Since accurate and reproducible measures are prerequisites for robust results, choosing an acceptable measure with strong psychometric properties to assess financial toxicity is essential. However, a description of the psychometric properties of existing measures is still lacking. The aim of this study is to apply COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology to systematically review the content and structural validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of financial toxicity for cancer survivors.Methods and analysisPubMed/Medline, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) will be comprehensively searched from database inception to 15 November 2019. Studies that report the measurement properties of PROMs assessing financial toxicity for cancer survivors will be included. The evaluation of measurement properties, data extraction and data synthesis will be conducted according to the COSMIN methodology.Ethics and disseminationNo individual data are involved in this systematic review. The results will be disseminated to a clinical audience and policy-makers though peer-reviewed journals and conferences and will support researchers in choosing the best measure to evaluate the financial toxicity of cancer survivors.

Download Full-text

Implementation outcome assessment instruments used in physical healthcare settings and their measurement properties: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017972 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (10) ◽

pp. e017972 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Zarnie Khadjesari ◽

Silia Vitoratou ◽

Nick Sevdalis ◽

Louise Hull

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Healthcare Settings ◽

Implementation Outcomes ◽

Psychometric Quality ◽

The Impact ◽

Selection Of

IntroductionOver the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures.Methods and analysisThe following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):CRD42017065348.

Download Full-text

How to Select a Questionnaire with a Good Methodological Quality?

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/0103-6440201802008 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 29 (1) ◽

pp. 3-6 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Saul Martins Paiva ◽

Matheus de França Perazzo ◽

Fernanda Ruffo Ortiz ◽

Isabela Almeida Pordeus ◽

Paulo Antônio Martins-Júnior

Keyword(s):

Oral Health ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Cosmin Checklist ◽

Related Quality ◽

Health Related ◽

The Impact

Abstract In the last decades, several instruments have been used to evaluate the impact of oral health problems on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of individuals. However, some instruments lack thorough methodological validation or present conceptual differences that hinder comparisons with instruments. Thus, it can be difficult to clinicians and researchers to select a questionnaire that accurately reflect what are really meaningful to individuals. This short communication aimed to discuss the importance of use an appropriate checklist to select an instrument with a good methodological quality. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to provide tools for evidence-based instrument selection. The COSMIN checklist comprises ten boxes that evaluate whether a study meets the standard for good methodological quality and two additional boxes to meet studies that use the Item Response Theory method and general requirements for results generalization, resulting in four steps to be followed. In this way, it is required at least some expertise in psychometrics or clinimetrics to a wide-ranging use of this checklist. The COSMIN applications include its use to ensure the standardization of cross-cultural adaptations and safer comparisons between measurement studies and evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews of measurement properties. Also, it can be used by students when training about measurement properties and by editors and reviewers when revising manuscripts on this topic. The popularization of COSMIN checklist is therefore necessary to improve the selection and evaluation of health measurement instruments.

Download Full-text

A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify measures of breakthrough pain and evaluate their psychometric properties

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035541 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. e035541

Author(s):

Katie Greenfield ◽

Simone Holley ◽

Daniel Eric Schoth ◽

Julie Bayliss ◽

Anna-Karenia Anderson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psychometric Properties ◽

Full Text ◽

Breakthrough Pain ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Assessment Process ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Health Measurement

IntroductionBreakthrough pain is common in children and adults with cancer and other conditions, including those approaching end-of-life, although it is often poorly managed, possibly partly due to a lack of validated assessment tools. This review aims to (1) identify all available instruments measuring breakthrough pain in infants, children, adolescents or adults and (2) critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the psychometric properties of the identified instruments using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria.Methods and analysisTwo searches will be carried out between October 2019 and January 2020, one for each aim of the review. The Cochrane Library, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey databases will be searched from database inception until the date the search is conducted. Reference lists of eligible articles will be screened and authors in the field contacted. For search 1, articles will be screened by two reviewers by abstract, and full-text where necessary, to identify if a breakthrough pain assessment was used. Search 2 will then be conducted to identify studies evaluating measurement properties of these assessments. Two reviewers will screen articles from search 2 by title and abstract. All potentially relevant studies will be screened by full text by both reviewers. For search 2, data will be extracted in parallel with the quality assessment process, as recommended by COSMIN. Two reviewers will assess methodological quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the COSMIN updated criteria for good measurement properties. Findings will be summarised and, if possible, data will be pooled using meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence will be graded and summarised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines.Ethics and disseminationResults of this review will be submitted for publication in a peer review journal and presented at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019155583.

Download Full-text

Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036038 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (8) ◽

pp. e036038

Author(s):

Sonia Lorente ◽

Carme Viladrich ◽

Jaume Vives ◽

Josep-Maria Losilla

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Meta Review ◽

Methodological Guidelines

ObjectiveThis meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews.DesignMeta-review.MethodsElectronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.ResultsA total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness).ConclusionsThe reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065232.

Download Full-text