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 PROPRIEDADES PSICOMÉTRICAS DE INSTRUMENTOS DE MEDIDAS: BASES CONCEITUAIS E MÉTODOS DE AVALIAÇÃO - PARTE I

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Elena Echevarría-Guanilo ◽  
Natália Gonçalves ◽  
Priscila Juceli Romanoski
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

RESUMO Objetivo: apresentar e discutir bases conceituais e métodos de avaliações que fundamentam importantes propriedades de instrumentos de medidas. Método: estudo teórico embasado na literatura internacional e nacional e nos instrumentos Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments e Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes que contemplam conceitos de avaliação de instrumentos para apreciação de resultados relatados pelo paciente. Inicialmente são apresentados e discutidos os conceitos de confiabilidade, responsividade e interpretabilidade, citados exemplos das principais formas de avaliação dessas propriedades. Resultados: pode-se perceber que ainda há divergências em algumas descrições conceituais. Entretanto, os autores ressaltam a importância da confiabilidade para avaliar o instrumento de medida. Destaca-se a importância do conhecimento do Modelo Conceitual, das propriedades de medidas e dos diferentes métodos de avaliação para garantir, principalmente em estudo de validação de instrumentos, resultados confiáveis e válidos. Conclusões: a discussão apresentada sobre a confiabilidade, responsividade e interpretabilidade contribui para os profissionais de saúde no conhecimento teórico e senso crítico na escolha de instrumentos e na condução de análises sobre essas propriedades de medida.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

scholarly journals International development and implementation of a core measurement set for research and audit studies in implant-based breast reconstruction: a study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e035505
Author(s):  
Shelley Potter ◽  
Charlotte Davies ◽  
Christopher Holcombe ◽  
Eva Weiler-Mithoff ◽  
Joanna Skillman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
International Development ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Clinical Patient ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

IntroductionOutcome reporting in research studies of breast reconstruction is inconsistent and lacks standardisation. The results of individual studies therefore cannot be meaningfully compared or combined limiting their value. A core outcome set (COS) has been developed to address these issues and identified 11 key outcomes to be measured and reported in all future research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery (RBS). A COS represents what key outcomes should be measured. The next step is to determine how and when this should be done. The aim of this study is to develop a core measurement set (CMS) for use in research and audit studies in implant-based breast reconstruction.Methods and analysisThe CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative (COMET) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group for the selection of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for relevant outcome domains included in the RBS COS. This will involve three phases with strategies to promote implementation as a final additional phase. The phases are (1) conceptual considerations in which the target population, procedures and settings are defined; (2) systematic reviews to identify existing clinical, patient-reported and cosmetic OMIs and, if appropriate, assess their quality using COSMIN methodology; (3) a modified Delphi process including sequential Delphi surveys involving approximately 100 healthcare professionals and a face to face consensus meeting to agree and ratify which outcome definitions and OMIs should be used and standardised time points for assessment; (4) strategies to promote dissemination and adoption of the CMS.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by University of Bristol Faculty Research Ethics Committee FREC ID 60221. Dissemination strategies will include scientific meeting presentations and peer-reviewed journal publications. Implementation activities will include engagement with journal editors and funders to promote uptake and use of the CMS.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document