Psychometric Properties of Parent Outcome Measures Used in RCTs of Antenatal and Early Years Parent Programs: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Blower SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6669247 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This systematic review sought to identify observational measures of parent-child interactions commonly implemented in parenting program research, and to assess the level of psychometric evidence available for their use with this age group. Two separate searches of the same databases were conducted; firstly, to identify eligible instruments, and secondly to identify studies reporting on the psychometric properties of the identified measures. Five commercial platforms hosting 19 electronic databases were searched from their inception to conducted search dates. Fourteen measures were identified from Search 1; a systematic search of randomized controlled trial evaluations of parenting programs. For Search 2, inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to 1327 retrieved papers that described the development and/or validation of the 14 measures identified in Search 1. Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria, resulting in five observational measures for the final review. Data were extracted and synthesized using the COSMIN rating system to describe the methodological quality of each article alongside the overall quality rating of the psychometric property reported for each measure using the Terwee checklist. Measure reliability was categorized into four domains (internal consistency, test-re-test, inter-rater, and intra-rater). Measure validity was categorized into four domains (content, structural, convergent/divergent, and discriminant). Results indicated that the majority of psychometric evidence related to children aged from birth the three with internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and structural validity the most commonly reported properties, although this evidence was often weak. The findings suggest further validation of the included measures is required to establish acceptability for the whole target age group.
| S-EPMC6478772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic review is one of the three which sought to identify measures commonly implemented in parenting program research, and to assess the level of psychometric evidence available for their use with this age group. This review focuses specifically on measures of child social-emotional and behavioral outcomes. Two separate searches of the same databases were conducted; firstly to identify eligible instruments, and secondly to identify studies reporting on the psychometric properties of the identified measures. Five commercial platforms hosting 19 electronic databases were searched from their inception to conducted search dates. Twenty-four measures were identified from Search 1: a systematic search of randomized controlled trial evaluations of parenting programs. For Search 2, inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to 21,329 articles that described the development and/or validation of the 24 measures identified in Search 1. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria. resulting in 11 parent report questionnaires and three developmental assessment measures for review. Data were extracted and synthesized to describe the methodological quality of each article using the COSMIN checklist alongside the overall quality rating of the psychometric property reported for each measure. Measure reliability was categorized into four domains (internal consistency, test-re-test, inter-rater, and intra-rater). Measure validity was categorized into four domains (content, structural, convergent/divergent, and discriminant). Results indicated that supporting evidence for included measures is weak. Further work is required to improve the evidence base for those measures designed to assess children's social-emotional and behavioral development in this age group. PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42016039600.
| S-EPMC6669186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of people living with HIV and AIDS is multidimensional and complex. Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been increasingly recognized to be the key factor for providing patient-centered health care to meet the lifelong needs of people living with HIV and AIDS from diagnosis to death. However, there is currently no consensus on a PROM recommended for health care providers and researchers to assess health outcomes in people living with HIV and AIDS.ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and categorize the available validated HIV-specific PROMs in adults living with HIV and AIDS and to assess these PROMs using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology.MethodsThis systematic review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A literature search of 3 recommended databases (PubMed, Embase, and PsychINFO) was conducted on January 15, 2021. Studies were included if they assessed any psychometric property of HIV-specific PROMs in adults living with HIV and AIDS and met the eligibility criteria. The PROMs were assessed for 9 psychometric properties, evaluated in each included study following the COSMIN methodology by assessing the following: the methodological quality assessed using the COSMIN risk of bias checklist; overall rating of results; level of evidence assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach; and level of recommendation.ResultsA total of 88 PROMs classified into 8 categories, assessing the psychometric properties of PROMs for adults living with HIV and AIDS, were identified in 152 studies including 79,213 people living with HIV and AIDS. The psychometric properties of most included PROMs were rated with insufficient evidence. The PROMs that received class A recommendation were the Poz Quality of Life, HIV Symptom Index or Symptoms Distress Module of the Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group, and People Living with HIV Resilience Scale. In addition, because of a lack of evidence, recommendations regarding use could not be made for most of the remaining assessed PROMs (received class B recommendation).ConclusionsThis systematic review recommends 3 PROMs to assess health outcomes in adults living with HIV and AIDS. However, all these PROMs have some shortcomings. In addition, most of the included PROMs do not have sufficient evidence for assessing their psychometric properties and require a more comprehensive validation of the psychometric properties in the future to provide more scientific evidence. Thus, our findings may provide a reference for the selection of high-quality HIV-specific PROMs by health care providers and researchers for clinical practice and research.
| S-EPMC9782451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Parent-child communication represents an important variable in clinical child and family psychology due to its association with a variety of psychosocial outcomes. To give an overview of instruments designed to measure the quality of parent-child communication from the child's (8-21 years) perspective and to assess the psychometric quality of these instruments, we performed a systematic literature search in Medline and PsycInfo (last: February 25, 2022). Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English with a child-rated instrument measuring the quality of parent-child communication were included. Initial screening for eligibility and inclusion, subsequent data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by couples of review team members. Based on the screening of 5115 articles, 106 studies reported in 126 papers were included. We identified 12 parent-child communication instruments across the studies. The Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS) was used in 75% of the studies. On average, the evidence for psychometric quality of the instruments was low. Few instruments were used in clinical and at-risk samples. Several instruments are available to rate parent-child communication from the child's perspective. However, their psychometric evidence is limited and the theoretical foundation is largely undocumented. This review has limitations with regard to selection criteria and language bias.Registration PROSPERO: CRD42021255264.
| S-EPMC9879831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVarious patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We aimed to describe their psychometric properties, assess their relationship with 1-year mortality and determine their minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs).MethodsIn a prospective multicentre study, participants with IPF completed the King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease Questionnaire (K-BILD), the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and University of California, San Diego shortness of breath questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ) three-monthly intervals over a 12-month period. Forced vital capacity (FVC) was matched with questionnaires and mortality was captured. Anchor- and distribution-based methods were used to derive MCID.ResultsData were available from 238 participants. All PROMs had good internal consistency and high degree of correlations with other tools (except UCSD-SOBQ correlated poorly with FVC). There were significant associations with mortality for K-BILD (hazard ratio 16.67; 95% CI 2.38-100) and SGRQ (hazard ratio 4.65; 95% CI 1.32-16.62) but not with the other PROMs or FVC. The median MCID (range) for K-BILD was 6.3 (4.1-7.0), SGRQ was 7.0 (3.8-9.6), mMRC was 0.4 (0.1-0.5) and UCSD-SOBQ was 9.6 (4.1-14.2).ConclusionsThe K-BILD was related to other severity measures and had the strongest relationship with mortality.
| S-EPMC8495510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformal carers face many challenges in caring for patients with palliative care needs. Selecting suitable valid and reliable outcome measures to determine the impact of caring and carers' outcomes is a common problem.AimTo identify outcome measures used for informal carers looking after patients with palliative care needs, and to evaluate the measures' psychometric properties.DesignA systematic review was conducted. The studies identified were evaluated by independent reviewers (C.T.J.M., M.B., M.P.). Data regarding study characteristics and psychometric properties of the measures were extracted and evaluated. Good psychometric properties indicate a high-quality measure.Data sourcesThe search was conducted, unrestricted to publication year, in the following electronic databases: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index and Sociological Abstracts.ResultsOur systematic search revealed 4505 potential relevant studies, of which 112 studies met the inclusion criteria using 38 carer measures for informal carers of patients with palliative care needs. Psychometric properties were reported in only 46% (n = 52) of the studies, in relation to 24 measures. Where psychometric data were reported, the focus was mainly on internal consistency (n = 45, 87%), construct validity (n = 27, 52%) and/or reliability (n = 14, 27%). Of these, 24 measures, only four (17%) had been formally validated in informal carers in palliative care.ConclusionA broad range of outcome measures have been used for informal carers of patients with palliative care needs. Little formal psychometric testing has been undertaken. Furthermore, development and refinement of measures in this field is required.
| S-EPMC4708617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhich outcome measures are reported in RCTs for IVF?Summary answerMany combinations of numerator and denominator are in use, and are often employed in a manner that compromises the validity of the study.What is known alreadyThe choice of numerator and denominator governs the meaning, relevance and statistical integrity of a study's results. RCTs only provide reliable evidence when outcomes are assessed in the cohort of randomised participants, rather than in the subgroup of patients who completed treatment.Study design, size, durationReview of outcome measures reported in 142 IVF RCTs published in 2013 or 2014.Participants/materials, setting, methodsTrials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register. English-language publications of RCTs reporting clinical or preclinical outcomes in peer-reviewed journals in the period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014 were eligible. Reported numerators and denominators were extracted. Where they were reported, we checked to see if live birth rates were calculated correctly using the entire randomised cohort or a later denominator.Main results and the role of chanceOver 800 combinations of numerator and denominator were identified (613 in no more than one study). No single outcome measure appeared in the majority of trials. Only 22 (43%) studies reporting live birth presented a calculation including all randomised participants or only excluding protocol violators. A variety of definitions were used for key clinical numerators: for example, a consensus regarding what should constitute an ongoing pregnancy does not appear to exist at present.Limitations, reasons for cautionSeveral of the included articles may have been secondary publications. Our categorisation scheme was essentially arbitrary, so the frequencies we present should be interpreted with this in mind. The analysis of live birth denominators was post hoc.Wider implications of the findingsThere is massive diversity in numerator and denominator selection in IVF trials due to its multistage nature, and this causes methodological frailty in the evidence base. The twin spectres of outcome reporting bias and analysis of non-randomised comparisons do not appear to be widely recognised. Initiatives to standardise outcome reporting, such as requiring all effectiveness studies to report live birth or cumulative live birth, are welcome. However, there is a need to recognise that early outcomes of treatment, such as stimulation response or embryo quality, may be appropriate choices of primary outcome for early phase studies.Study funding/competing interestsJ.W. is funded by a Doctoral Research Fellowship from the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. J.W. also declares that publishing research is beneficial to his career. J.W. and A.V. are statistical editors, and M.S. is Information Specialist, for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, although the views expressed here are not necessarily those of the group. D.R.B. is funded by the NHS as Scientific Director of a clinical IVF service. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.
| S-EPMC5193327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Developing successful interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain requires valid, responsive, and reliable outcome measures. The Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program completed a focused evidence review on key psychometric properties of 17 self-report measures of pain severity and pain-related functional impairment suitable for clinical research on chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS:Pain experts of the VA Pain Measurement Outcomes Workgroup identified 17 pain measures to undergo systematic review. In addition to a MEDLINE search on these 17 measures (1/2000-1/2017), we hand-searched (without publication date limits) the reference lists of all included studies, prior systematic reviews, and-when available-Web sites dedicated to each measure (PROSPERO registration CRD42017056610). Our primary outcome was the measure's minimal important difference (MID). Secondary outcomes included responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Outcomes were synthesized through evidence mapping and qualitative comparison. RESULTS:Of 1635 abstracts identified, 331 articles underwent full-text review, and 43 met inclusion criteria. Five measures (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) had data reported on MID, responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Seven measures had data reported on three of the four psychometric outcomes. Eight measures had reported MIDs, though estimation methods differed substantially and often were not clinically anchored. CONCLUSIONS:In this focused evidence review, the most evidence on key psychometric properties in chronic musculoskeletal pain populations was found for the ODI, RMDQ, SF-36 BPS, NRS, and VAS. Key limitations in the field include substantial variation in methods of estimating psychometric properties, defining chronic musculoskeletal pain, and reporting patient demographics. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017056610.
| S-EPMC5902346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.ObjectivesThe objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.ResultsOf 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's r coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) Standards validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.ConclusionsThis review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (i.e., the Standards) in future research utilization measurement studies.
| S-EPMC3169486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the continued development of patient-centred healthcare models, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to evaluate outcomes in patients with upper limb pathology. The aim was to identify valid, reliable and responsive PROMs used to assess outcomes following upper limb pathology, and ascertain how their psychometric properties had been established. A secondary aim was to identify PROMs that have been validated to assess upper limb pathology in the paediatric population.MethodsA review of the Medline and EMBASE database was performed. Articles that analysed the validity of an established PROM used for upper limb pathology were included. Extracted study data included: author, country, PROM(s) investigated, year of publication, study type, sample size, demographics and duration of follow-up.ResultsTwenty-five articles were included, which together investigated the psychometric properties of 23 different PROMs that have been used to assess outcomes in adults following upper limb pathology. No study evaluated the psychometric properties of PROMs used in the paediatric population. Among PROMs that have been used in adults, the Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) had strong content- and construct-validity, reliability and responsiveness in comparison to others.ConclusionThere are currently no studies that have analysed the content validity of PROMs used to assess upper limb pathology in the paediatric population. Prospective studies are required for the development of PROMs that can be utilized in children to assess upper limb pathology.
| S-EPMC10087017 | biostudies-literature