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

BMJ Open ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Measuring perceived adequacy of staffing to incorporate nurses’ judgement into hospital capacity management: a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e045245
Author(s):  
Carmen J E M van der Mark ◽  
Hester Vermeulen ◽  
Paul H J Hendriks ◽  
Catharina J van Oostveen
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Workforce Planning ◽  
Nurse Staffing ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Factors Influencing

BackgroundMatching demand and supply in nursing work continues to generate debate. Current approaches focus on objective measures, such as nurses per occupied bed or patient classification. However, staff numbers do not tell the whole staffing story. The subjective measure of nurses’ perceived adequacy of staffing (PAS) has the potential to enhance nurse staffing methods in a way that goes beyond traditional workload measurement or workforce planning methods.ObjectivesTo detect outcomes associated with nurses’ PAS and the factors that influence PAS and to review the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure PAS in a hospital setting.Design and methodsA scoping review was performed to identify outcomes associated with PAS, factors influencing PAS and instruments measuring PAS. A search of PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Business Source Complete and Embase databases identified 2609 potentially relevant articles. Data were independently extracted, analysed and synthesised. The quality of studies describing influencing factors or outcomes of PAS and psychometric properties of instruments measuring PAS were assessed following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklist and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines.ResultsSixty-three studies were included, describing 60 outcomes of PAS, 79 factors influencing PAS and 21 instruments measuring PAS. In general, positive PAS was related to positive outcomes for the patient, nurse and organisation, supporting the relevance of PAS as a staffing measure. We identified a variety of factors that influence PAS, including demand for care, nurse supply and organisation of care delivery. Associations between these factors and PAS were inconsistent. The quality of studies investigating the development and evaluation of instruments measuring PAS was moderate.ConclusionsMeasuring the PAS may enhance nurse staffing methods in a hospital setting. Further work is needed to refine and psychometrically evaluate instruments for measuring PAS.

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

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

scholarly journals PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS: CONCEPTUAL BASIS AND EVALUATION METHODS - PART II

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
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.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040920
Author(s):  
Elisabeth L Zeilinger ◽  
Sophie Komenda ◽  
Irina Zrnic ◽  
Fabian Franken ◽  
Katharina Woditschka
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Functional Impairments ◽  
Global Risk ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement

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.

scholarly journals How to Select a Questionnaire with a Good Methodological Quality?

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6 ◽  
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.

Measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvain Boet ◽  
Nicole Etherington ◽  
Sarah Larrigan ◽  
Li Yin ◽  
Hira Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Crisis Situations

BackgroundEducational interventions to improve teamwork in crisis situations have proliferated in recent years with substantial variation in teamwork measurement. This systematic review aimed to synthesise available tools and their measurement properties in order to identify the most robust tool for measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations.MethodsSearches were conducted in Embase (via OVID), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Center, Medline and Medline In-Process (via OVID) (through 12 January 2017). Studies evaluating the measurement properties of teamwork assessment tools for teams in clinical or simulated crisis situations were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies based on predetermined criteria and completed data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsThe search yielded 1822 references. Twenty studies were included, representing 13 assessment tools. Tools were primarily assessed in simulated resuscitation scenarios for emergency department teams. The Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) had the most validation studies (n=5), which demonstrated three sources of validity (content, construct and concurrent) and three sources of reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability). Most studies of TEAM’s measurement properties were at no risk of bias.ConclusionsA number of tools are available for assessing teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations. Although selection will ultimately depend on the user’s context, TEAM may be the most promising tool given its measurement evidence. Currently, there is a lack of tools to assess teamwork performance during intraoperative crisis situations. Additional research is needed in this regard.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Treatment Outcome Measurement Instruments for Port Wine Stains: A Systematic Review of Their Measurement Properties

Dermatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
M. Ingmar van Raath ◽  
Sandeep Chohan ◽  
Albert Wolkerstorfer ◽  
Chantal M.A.M. van der Horst ◽  
Jacqueline Limpens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Minimal Important Change ◽  
Port Wine ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

<b><i>Background:</i></b> A plethora of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are being used in port wine stain (PWS) studies. It is currently unclear how valid, responsive, and reliable these are. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the content validity and other measurement properties of OMIs for PWS treatment to identify the most appropriate instruments and future research priorities. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This study was performed using the updated Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches in Medline and Embase were performed. Studies in which an OMI for PWS patients was developed or its measurement properties were evaluated were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies and instruments to perform qualitative synthesis of the evidence. <b><i>Results:</i></b> In total, 1,034 articles were screened, and 77 full-text articles were reviewed. A total of 8 studies were included that reported on 6 physician-reported OMIs of clinical improvement and 6 parent- or patient-reported OMIs of life impact, of which 3 for health-related quality of life and 1 for perceived stigmatization. Overall, the quality of OMI development was inadequate (63%) or doubtful (37%). Each instrument has undergone a very limited evaluation in PWS patients. No content validity studies were performed. The quality of evidence for content validity was very low (78%), low (15%), or moderate (7%), with sufficient comprehensibility, mostly sufficient comprehensiveness, and mixed relevance. No studies on responsiveness, minimal important change, and cross-cultural validity were retrieved. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence for sufficient inter-rater reliability for some clinical PWS OMIs. Internal consistency and measurement error were indeterminate in all studies. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> There was insufficient evidence to properly guide outcome selection. Additional assessment of the measurement properties of OMIs is needed, preferentially guided by a core domain set tailored to PWS.

Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Detection: A Scoping Review (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulrahman Takiddin ◽  
Jens Schneider ◽  
Yin Yang ◽  
Alaa Abd-Alrazaq ◽  
Mowafa Househ
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Skin Cancer ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Evaluation Metrics ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Computer Algorithms ◽  
Scoping Reviews

BACKGROUND Skin cancer is the most common cancer type affecting humans. Traditional skin cancer diagnosis methods are costly, require a professional physician, and take time. Hence, to aid in diagnosing skin cancer, Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are being used, including shallow and deep machine learning-based techniques that are trained to detect and classify skin cancer using computer algorithms and deep neural networks. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to identify and group the different types of AI-based technologies used to detect and classify skin cancer. The study also examines the reliability of the selected papers by studying the correlation between the dataset size and number of diagnostic classes with the performance metrics used to evaluate the models. METHODS We conducted a systematic search for articles using IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, and Ovid MEDLINE databases following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The study included in this scoping review had to fulfill several selection criteria; to be specifically about skin cancer, detecting or classifying skin cancer, and using AI technologies. Study selection and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers independently. Extracted data were synthesized narratively, where studies were grouped based on the diagnostic AI techniques and their evaluation metrics. RESULTS We retrieved 906 papers from the 3 databases, but 53 studies were eligible for this review. While shallow techniques were used in 14 studies, deep techniques were utilized in 39 studies. The studies used accuracy (n=43/53), the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (n=5/53), sensitivity (n=3/53), and F1-score (n=2/53) to assess the proposed models. Studies that use smaller datasets and fewer diagnostic classes tend to have higher reported accuracy scores. CONCLUSIONS The adaptation of AI in the medical field facilitates the diagnosis process of skin cancer. However, the reliability of most AI tools is questionable since small datasets or low numbers of diagnostic classes are used. In addition, a direct comparison between methods is hindered by a varied use of different evaluation metrics and image types.

scholarly journals Apathy Measures in Older Adults and People with Dementia: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties Using the COSMIN Methodology

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Clare Burgon ◽  
Sarah Elizabeth Goldberg ◽  
Veronika van der Wardt ◽  
Catherine Brewin ◽  
Rowan H. Harwood
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Patient Reported

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Apathy is highly prevalent in dementia and is also seen in mild cognitive impairment and the general population. Apathy contributes to failure to undertake daily activities and can lead to health problems or crises. It is therefore important to assess apathy. However, there is currently no gold standard measure of apathy. A comprehensive systematic review of the measurement properties of apathy scales is required. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42018094390). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for studies that aimed to develop or assess the validity or reliability of an apathy scale in participants over 65 years, living in the community. A systematic review was conducted in line with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments procedure for reviewing patient-reported outcome measures. The studies’ risk of bias was assessed, and all relevant measurement properties were assessed for quality. Results were pooled and rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation procedure. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fifty-seven publications regarding 18 measures and 39 variations met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of individual studies ranged from inadequate to very good and measurement properties ranged from insufficient to sufficient. Similarly, the overall evidence for measurement properties ranged from very low to high quality. The Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) and Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS) had sufficient content validity, reliability, construct validity, and where applicable, structural validity and internal consistency. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Numerous scales are available to assess apathy, with varying psychometric properties. The AES and LARS are recommended for measuring apathy in older adults and people living with dementia. The apathy dimension of the commonly used Neuropsychiatric Inventory should be limited to screening for apathy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document