Dataset Information

Psychometric Properties of Parent Outcome Measures Used in RCTs of Antenatal and Early Years Parent Programs: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Parenting programs are effective in the early intervention and treatment of children's social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, inconsistency in the use of outcome measures limits the comparability of programs and creates challenges for practitioners seeking to monitor progress of families in their care. A systematic review was conducted to identify measures, appraise their psychometric properties and ease of implementation, with the overall objective of recommending a small battery of measures for use by researchers and practitioners. This article provides an overview of the most commonly used measures in experimental evaluations of parenting programs delivered to parents of children up to, and including, the age of 5 years (including antenatal programs). An in-depth appraisal of the psychometric properties and ease of implementation of parent outcome measures is also presented (findings in relation to child and dyadic outcome measures are presented elsewhere). Following a systematic search, 64 measures were identified as being used in three or more of 279 included evaluation studies. Data on the psychometric properties of 18 parent outcome measures were synthesised from 87 development and validation studies. Whilst it was not possible to identify a definitive battery of recommended measures, we are able to recommend specific measures that could be prioritised in further research and development and hold promise for those seeking to monitor the outcomes of parents and children in receipt of parenting programs.

SUBMITTER: Blower SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6669247 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Psychometric Properties of Parent Outcome Measures Used in RCTs of Antenatal and Early Years Parent Programs: A Systematic Review.

Blower Sarah L SL Gridley Nicole N Dunn Abby A Bywater Tracey T Hindson Zoe Z Bryant Maria M

Clinical child and family psychology review 20190901 3

Parenting programs are effective in the early intervention and treatment of children's social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, inconsistency in the use of outcome measures limits the comparability of programs and creates challenges for practitioners seeking to monitor progress of families in their care. A systematic review was conducted to identify measures, appraise their psychometric properties and ease of implementation, with the overall objective of recommending a small batt ...[more]

PMID: 30796674

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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.

Project description:Several measurement tools commonly used in face-to-face neurological rehabilitation have been used in telerehabilitation. However, it is not known whether these tools have adequate measurement properties and clinical utility. This systematic review aims to investigate the measurement properties and the clinical utility of measurement tools used in telerehabilitation in individuals with neurological diseases. A systematic review to investigate the measurement properties and clinical utility of measurement tools used in telerehabilitation in individuals with neurological conditions will be conducted. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. this systematic review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 28 May 2021 (registration number: CRD42021257662). Electronic searches will be performed in following databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE Ovid), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase Classic + Embase Ovid), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo), and Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS). Two trained independent reviewers will select the studies according to the inclusion criteria, and will also extract the data, evaluate the clinical utility and methodological quality. The relevant data such as design, participants, settings, and mode of administration, measurement properties, and clinical utility will be summarized. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by consensus or by the decision of a third independent reviewer. Hand searches of other relevant studies will be employed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and the clinical utility scale will be used to assess the methodological quality and clinical utility of these tools, respectively. This systematic review will provide information regarding the measurement properties and the clinical utility of the measurement tools used in neurological telerehabilitation. This information will be useful to assist health professionals in choosing adequate measurement tools and planning new research studies.

Dataset Information

Psychometric Properties of Parent Outcome Measures Used in RCTs of Antenatal and Early Years Parent Programs: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Psychometric Properties of Parent Outcome Measures Used in RCTs of Antenatal and Early Years Parent Programs: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets