Dataset Information

Terrorism, Radicalisation, Extremism, Authoritarianism and Fundamentalism: A Systematic Review of the Quality and Psychometric Properties of Assessments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Currently, terrorism and suicide bombing are global psychosocial processes that attracts a growing number of psychological and psychiatric contributions to enhance practical counter-terrorism measures. The present study is a systematic review that explores the methodological quality reporting and the psychometric soundness of the instruments developed to identify risk factors of terrorism, extremism, radicalisation, authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

Method

A systematic search strategy was established to identify instruments and studies developed to screen individuals at risk of committing extremist or terrorist offences using 20 different databases across the fields of law, medicine, psychology, sociology and politics. Information extracted was consolidated into two different tables and a 26-item checklist, reporting respectively background information, the psychometric properties of each tool, and the methodological quality markers of these tools. 37 articles met our criteria, which included a total of 4 instruments to be used operationally by professionals, 17 tools developed as research measures, and 9 inventories that have not been generated from a study.

Results

Just over half of the methodological quality markers required for a transparent methodological description of the instruments were reported. The amount of reported psychological properties was even fewer, with only a third of them available across the different studies. The category presenting the least satisfactory results was that containing the 4 instruments to be used operationally by professionals, which can be explained by the fact that half of them refrained from publishing the major part of their findings and relevant guidelines.

Conclusions

A great number of flaws have been identified through this systematic review. The authors encourage future researchers to be more thorough, comprehensive and transparent in their methodology. They also recommend the creation of a multi-disciplinary joint working group in order to best tackle this growing contemporary problem.

SUBMITTER: Scarcella A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5176288 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Terrorism, Radicalisation, Extremism, Authoritarianism and Fundamentalism: A Systematic Review of the Quality and Psychometric Properties of Assessments.

Scarcella Akimi A Page Ruairi R Furtado Vivek V

PloS one 20161221 12

<h4>Background</h4>Currently, terrorism and suicide bombing are global psychosocial processes that attracts a growing number of psychological and psychiatric contributions to enhance practical counter-terrorism measures. The present study is a systematic review that explores the methodological quality reporting and the psychometric soundness of the instruments developed to identify risk factors of terrorism, extremism, radicalisation, authoritarianism and fundamentalism.<h4>Method</h4>A systemat ...[more]

PMID: 28002457

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOver the last two centuries, researchers developed several assessments to evaluate the multidimensional construct of imagery. However, no comprehensive systematic review (SR) exists for imagery ability evaluation methods and an in-depth quality evaluation of their psychometric properties.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive systematic search in six databases in the disciplines of sport, psychology, medicine, education: SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles for selection. COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. All included assessments were evaluated for quality using criteria for good measurement properties. The evidence synthesis was summarised by using the GRADE approach.ResultsIn total, 121 articles reporting 155 studies and describing 65 assessments were included. We categorised assessments based on their construct on: (1) motor imagery (n = 15), (2) mental imagery (n = 48) and (3) mental chronometry (n = 2). Methodological quality of studies was mainly doubtful or inadequate. The psychometric properties of most assessments were insufficient or indeterminate. The best rated assessments with sufficient psychometric properties were MIQ, MIQ-R, MIQ-3, and VMIQ-2 for evaluation of motor imagery ability. Regarding mental imagery evaluation, only SIAQ and VVIQ showed sufficient psychometric properties.ConclusionVarious assessments exist to evaluate an individual's imagery ability within different dimensions or modalities of imagery in different disciplines. However, the psychometric properties of most assessments are insufficient or indeterminate. Several assessments should be revised and further validated. Moreover, most studies were only evaluated with students. Further cross-disciplinary validation studies are needed including older populations with a larger age range. Our findings allow clinicians, coaches, teachers, and researchers to select a suitable imagery ability assessment for their setting and goals based on information about the focus and quality of the assessments.Systematic reviews registerPROSPERO CRD42017077004 .

Project description:Background:Motor assessments are important to determine effectiveness of physical activity in individuals with dementia (IWD). However, inappropriate and non-standardised assessments without sound psychometric properties have been used. This systematic review aims to examine psychometric properties of motor assessments in IWD combined with frequency of use and effect sizes and to provide recommendations based on observed findings.We performed a two-stage systematic literature search using Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ALOIS, and Scopus (inception - July/September 2018, English and German). The first search purposed to identify motor assessments used in randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of physical activity in IWD and to display their frequency of use and effect sizes. The second search focused on psychometric properties considering influence of severity and aetiology of dementia and cueing on test-retest reliability. Two reviewers independently extracted and analysed findings of eligible studies in a narrative synthesis. Results:Literature searches identified 46 randomised controlled trials and 21 psychometric property studies. While insufficient information was available for validity, we observed sufficient inter-rater and relative test-retest reliability but unacceptable absolute test-retest reliability for most assessments. Combining these findings with frequency of use and effect sizes, we recommend Functional Reach Test, Groningen Meander Walking Test (time), Berg Balance Scale, Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment, Timed Up & Go Test, instrumented gait analysis (spatiotemporal parameters), Sit-to-Stand assessments (repetitions>?1), and 6-min walk test. It is important to consider that severity and aetiology of dementia and cueing influenced test-retest reliability of some assessments. Conclusion:This review establishes an important foundation for future investigations. Sufficient relative reliability supports the conclusiveness of recommended assessments at group level, while unacceptable absolute reliability advices caution in assessing intra-individual changes. Moreover, influences on test-retest reliability suggest tailoring assessments and instructions to IWD and applying cueing only where it is inevitable. Considering heterogeneity of included studies and insufficient examination in various areas, these recommendations are not comprehensive. Further research, especially on validity and influences on test-retest reliability, as well as standardisation and development of tailored assessments for IWD is crucial.This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018105399).

Project description:IntroductionMeasuring the quality of care at the end of life and/or the quality of dying and death can be challenging. Some measurement tools seek to assess the quality of care immediately prior to death; others retrospectively assess, following death, the quality of end-of-life care. The comparative evaluation of the properties and application of the various instruments has been limited.ObjectiveThis systematic review identified and critically appraised the psychometric properties and applicability of tools used after death.MethodWe conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for relevant studies. We then appraised the psychometric properties and the quality of reporting of the psychometric properties of the identified tools using the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist. The protocol of this systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016047296).ResultsThe search identified 4751 studies. Of these, 33 met the inclusion criteria, reporting on the psychometric properties of 67 tools. These tools measured quality of care at the end of life (n = 35), quality of dying and death (n = 22), or both quality of care at the end of life and dying and death (n = 10). Most tools were completed by family carers (n = 57), with some also completed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 2) or just HCPs (n = 8). No single tool was found to be adequate across all the psychometric properties assessed. Two quality of care at the end of life tools-Care of the Dying Evaluation and Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life in Dementia-had strong psychometric properties in most respects. Two tools assessing quality of dying and death-the Quality of Dying and Death and the newly developed Staff Perception of End of Life Experience-had limited to moderate evidence of good psychometric properties. Two tools assessing both quality of care and quality of dying and death-the Quality Of Dying in Long-Term Care for cognitively intact populations and Good Death Inventory (Korean version)-had the best psychometric properties.ConclusionFour tools demonstrated some promise, but no single tool was consistent across all psychometric properties assessed. All tools identified would benefit from further psychometric testing.

Project description:AimsOccupational Burnout (OB) is currently measured through several Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and some of them have become widely used in occupational health research and practice. We, therefore, aimed to review and grade the psychometric validity of the five OB PROMs considered as valid for OB measure in mental health professionals (the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Pines' Burnout Measure (BM), the Psychologist Burnout Inventory (PBI), the OLdenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI)).MethodsWe conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases. We reviewed studies published between January 1980 and September 2018 following a methodological framework, in which each step of PROM validation, the reference method, analytical technics and result interpretation criteria were assessed. Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments we evaluated the risk of bias in studies assessing content and criterion validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypotheses testing and responsiveness of each PROM. Finally, we assessed the level of evidence for the validity of each PROM using the GRADE approach.ResultsWe identified 6541 studies, 19 of which were included for review. Fifteen studies dealt with MBI whereas BM, PBI, OLBI and CBI were each examined in only one study. OLBI had the most complete validation, followed by CBI, MBI, BM and PBI, respectively. When examining the result interpretation correctness, the strongest disagreement was observed for MBI (27% of results), BM (25%) and CBI (17%). There was no disagreement regarding PBI and OLBI. For OLBI and CBI, the quality of evidence for sufficient content validity, the crucial psychometric property, was moderate; for MBI, BM and PBI, it was very low.ConclusionTo be validly and reliably used in medical research and practice, PROM should exhibit robust psychometric properties. Among the five PROMs reviewed, CBI and, to a lesser extent, OLBI meet this prerequisite. The cross-cultural validity of these PROMs was beyond the scope of our work and should be addressed in the future. Moreover, the development of a diagnostic standard for OB would be helpful to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the PROMs and further reexamine their validity.The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42019124621).

Project description:BackgroundCulinary skills are important objects of study in the field of Public Health. Studies that propose to develop instruments for assessing such construct show lack of methodological uniformity to report validity and reliability of their instruments.ObjectiveTo identify studies that have developed instruments to measure culinary skills in adult population, and critically assess their psychometric properties.DesignWe conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA statement. We searched literature PubMed/Medline, Scopus, LILACS, and Web of Science databases until January 2021, and consulted Google Scholar for relevant grey literature. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, conducted data extraction, and assessed the psychometric quality of the instruments. A third reviewer resolved any doubts or disagreements in all steps of the systematic review.ResultsThe search identified 1148 potentially relevant studies, out of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. In addition, we included 3 studies by searching the related articles and the reference lists of these studies, totaling 12 included studies in this review. Ten studies reported the development of tools measuring culinary skills in adults and 2 studies performed cross-cultural adaptations of original instruments. We considered adequate quality of internal consistency reliability in four studies. One study received adequate rating for test-retest reliability. No studies presented adequate rating for content validity and four studies showed satisfactory results for at least one type of construct validity. One study reported criterion validity and the quality of this psychometric property was inadequate.ConclusionsWe identified many studies that surveyed culinary skills. Although the isolated measures appraised in this review show good promise in terms of quality of psychometric properties, no studies presented adequate measures for each aspect of reliability and validity. A more consistent and consensual definition of culinary skills is recommended. The flaws observed in these studies show that there is a need for ongoing research in the area of the psychometric properties of instruments assessing culinary skills.

Dataset Information

Terrorism, Radicalisation, Extremism, Authoritarianism and Fundamentalism: A Systematic Review of the Quality and Psychometric Properties of Assessments.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Terrorism, Radicalisation, Extremism, Authoritarianism and Fundamentalism: A Systematic Review of the Quality and Psychometric Properties of Assessments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets