Dataset Information

Systematic review of instruments for assessing culinary skills in adults: What is the quality of their psychometric properties?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Culinary 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.

Objective

To identify studies that have developed instruments to measure culinary skills in adult population, and critically assess their psychometric properties.

Design

We 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

We 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.

SUBMITTER: Teixeira AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8351978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal health status (SHS) measurement has now been recognized as an essential construct in predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine. Currently, there are limited tools, and an ongoing debate about appropriate tools. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate and generate conclusive evidence about the psychometric properties of available SHS tools.ObjectiveThis research aimed to identify and critically assess the psychometric properties of available SHS instruments and provide recommendations for their future use.MethodsArticles were retrieved by following the guidelines of the PRISMA checklist, and the robustness of methods and evidence about the measurement properties was assessed using the adapted COSMIN checklist. The review was registered in PROSPERO.ResultsThe systematic review identified 14 publications describing four subjective SHS measures with established psychometric properties; these included the Suboptimal Health Status Questionnaire-25 (SHSQ-25), Sub-health Measurement Scale Version 1.0 (SHMS V1.0), Multidimensional Sub-health Questionnaire of Adolescents (MSQA), and the Sub-Health Self-Rating Scale (SSS). Most studies were conducted in China and reported three reliability indices: (1) the internal consistency measured by Cronbach's α value ranged between 0.70 and 0.96; (2) the test-retest reliability; and (3) the split-half reliability coefficient values ranged between 0.64 and 0.98, and between 0.83 and 0.96, respectively. For the values of validity coefficients in the case of SHSQ-25 > 0.71, the SHMS-1.0 ranged from 0.64 to 0.87, and the SSS ranged from 0.74 to 0.96. Using these existing and well-characterized tools rather than constructing original tools is beneficial, given that the existing choice demonstrated sound psychometric properties and established norms.ConclusionsThe SHSQ-25 stood out as being more suitable for the general population and routine health surveys, because it is short and easy to complete. Therefore, there is a need to adapt this tool by translating it into other languages, including Arabic, and establishing norms based on populations from other regions of the world.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults present a variety of oral diseases and conditions, in addition to co-morbidities and limited access to dental care, which significantly impact their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). There are many instruments published to measure OHRQoL. However, it is challenging for clinicians and researchers to choose the best instrument for a given purpose.PurposeTo identify OHRQoL instruments available for older adults and summarize the evidence on the conceptual and measurement model, psychometric properties, interpretability, and administration issues of OHRQoL instruments available for older adults through a systematic review.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL up to February 2023. Articles reporting information on the concept model measurement, psychometric properties, and administration issues of an instrument measuring OHRQoL in older adults were included. Two researchers independently evaluated each instrument using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. The overall score and seven attribute-specific scores were calculated (range 0-100): Conceptual and measurement model, Reliability, Validity, Responsiveness, Interpretability, Burden, and Alternative forms.ResultsWe identified 14 instruments evaluated in 97 articles. The overall score varied between 73.7 and 8.9, with only six questionnaires over the threshold score 50.0. EORTC QLQ OH-15 (cancer-specific questionnaire) achieved the highest score (73.7), followed by OHIP (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (66.9), GOHAI (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.5), and OHIDL (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.2). Overall, the Conceptual and measurement model and Validity showed the best performance, while Responsiveness and Interpretability showed the worst. Insufficient information was presented for an overall evaluation of DSQ and OHAI.ConclusionThe evidence supports using EORTC QLQ-OH15 as a specific instrument to assess OHRQoL in cancer patients and the OHIP-49, GOHAI, or OHIDL as generic instruments to assess OHRQoL either for cross-sectional or longitudinal studies in older adults.

Project description:BackgroundSexual desire is one of the domains of sexual function with multiple dimensions, which commonly affects men and women around the world. Classically, its assessment has been applied through self-report tools; however, an issue is related to the evidence level of these questionnaires and their validity. Therefore, a systematic review addressing the available questionnaires is really relevant, since it will be able to show their psychometric properties and evidence levels.MethodA systematic review was carried out in the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy was developed according to the following research question and combination of descriptors and keywords, including original studies with no limit of publication date and in Portuguese, English, and Spanish. Two reviewers carried out the selection of articles by abstracts and full texts as well as the analysis of the studies independently. The methodological quality of the instruments was evaluated by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsThe search resulted in 1203 articles, of which 15 were included in the review. It identified 10 instruments originally developed in the English language. Unsatisfactory results on methodological quality were evidenced in cultural adaptation studies with no description of the steps of the processes and inadequacy of techniques and parameters of adequacy for models. The Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation predominated in the studies.ConclusionsThe limitation of the techniques applied in the validation process of the reviewed instruments was evident. A limitation was observed in the number of adaptations conducted and contexts to which the instruments were applied, making it impossible to reach a better understanding of the functioning of instruments. In future studies, the use of robust techniques can ensure the quality of the psychometric properties and the accuracy and stability of instruments. A detailed description of procedures and results in validation studies may facilitate the selection and use of instruments in the academic and/or clinical settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018085706.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments' measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations.MethodsA systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990-2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument's usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee's criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments.ResultsAfter screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar's instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners' Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory.ConclusionAlthough instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies.

Project description:BackgroundQuality of life (QoL) outcomes are used to monitor quality of care for older adults accessing aged care services, yet it remains unclear which QoL instruments best meet older adults', providers' and policymakers' needs. This review aimed to (1) identify QoL instruments used in aged care and describe them in terms of QoL domains measured and logistical details; (2) summarise in which aged care settings the instruments have been used and (3) discuss factors to consider in deciding on the suitability of QoL instruments for use in aged care services.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to 2021.Eligibility criteriaInstruments were included if they were designed for adults (>18 years), available in English, been applied in a peer-reviewed research study examining QoL outcomes in adults >65 years accessing aged care (including home/social care, residential/long-term care) and had reported psychometrics.Data extraction and synthesisTwo researchers independently reviewed the measures and extracted the data. Data synthesis was performed via narrative review of eligible instruments.Results292 articles reporting on 29 QoL instruments were included. Eight domains of QoL were addressed: physical health, mental health, emotional state, social connection, environment, autonomy and overall QoL. The period between 1990 and 2000 produced the greatest number of newly developed instruments. The EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and Short Form-series were used across multiple aged care contexts including home and residential care. More recent instruments (eg, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) and Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)) tend to capture emotional sentiment towards personal circumstances and higher order care needs, in comparison with more established instruments (eg, EQ-5D) which are largely focused on health status.ConclusionsA comprehensive list of QoL instruments and their characteristics is provided to inform instrument choice for use in research or for care quality assurance in aged care settings, depending on needs and interests of users.

Project description:PurposeTo identify instruments used to measure parents' Quality of Life (QoL) during pregnancy and the postpartum period, and to describe their characteristics and psychometric properties.MethodsFor this scoping review we conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and HaPI in mid-December 2020, to identify studies evaluating psychometric properties. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) were used to define and categorize psychometric properties. Two reviewers screened the studies independently, and customized screening questions were used to assess eligibility against inclusion criteria. Data were systematically extracted into a predesigned data charting matrix, and descriptively analyzed.ResultsThe searches identified 5671 studies, of which 53 studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 19 QoL instruments: 12 generic and seven period specific. The most reported instruments were SF-36, SF-12 and WHOQOL-BREF, and the most evaluated instruments were SF-12, WHOQOL-BREF, QOL-GRAV, and PQOL. We found that none of the identified instruments had been evaluated for all nine psychometric properties recommended by the COSMIN. The most reported psychometric properties were internal consistency and structural validity. The instruments were primarily assessed in parents residing in Asia (50%), and 83% of the studies were conducted from 2010 to 2020. Only three studies included psychometric measures assessed on fathers.ConclusionOur review shows there is extensive evidence on the internal consistency and structural validity of QoL instruments used on parents during pregnancy and the postpartum period, but that the evidence on other psychometric properties is sparse. Validation studies and primary studies are needed to provide evidence on the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability of QoL instruments for this target group, in particular for fathers and partners.