Dataset Information

A Systematic Review Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Parent or Caregiver Report Instruments on Child Maltreatment: Part 2: Internal Consistency, Reliability, Measurement Error, Structural Validity, Hypothesis Testing, Cross-Cultural Validity, and Criterion Validity.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Child maltreatment (CM) is global public health issue with devastating lifelong consequences. Global organizations have endeavored to eliminate CM; however, there is lack of consensus on what instruments are most suitable for the investigation and prevention of CM. This systematic review aimed to appraise the psychometric properties (other than content validity) of all current parent- or caregiver-reported CM instruments and recommend the most suitable for use.

Method

A systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Sociological Abstracts databases was performed. The evaluation of psychometric properties was conducted according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-report outcome measures. Responsiveness was beyond the scope of this systematic review, and content validity has been reported on in a companion paper (Part 1). Only instruments developed and published in English were included.

Results

Twenty-five studies reported on selected psychometric properties of 15 identified instruments. The methodological quality of the studies was overall adequate. The psychometric properties of the instruments were generally indeterminate or not reported due to incomplete or missing psychometric data; high-quality evidence on the psychometric properties was limited.

Conclusions

No instruments could be recommended as most suitable for use in clinic and research. Nine instruments were identified as promising based on current psychometric data but would need further psychometric evidence for them to be recommended.

SUBMITTER: Yoon S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739544 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims: This study compared the psychometric properties of two self-efficacy instruments related to physical activity. Factorial validity, cross-group and longitudinal invariance, and composite reliability were examined. Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on data from a group randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of a 17-week intervention on increasing moderate to vigorous physical activity among 5th-8th grade girls (N = 1,012). Participants completed a 6-item Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Scale (PASE) and a 7-item Self-Efficacy for Exercise Behaviors Scale (SEEB) at baseline and post-intervention. Confirmatory factor analyses for intervention and control groups were conducted with Mplus Version 7.4 using robust weighted least squares estimation. Model fit was evaluated with the chi-square index, comparative fit index, and root mean square error of approximation. Composite reliability for latent factors with ordinal indicators was computed from Mplus output using SAS 9.3. Results: Mean age of the girls was 12.2 years (SD = 0.96). One-third of the girls were obese. Girls represented a diverse sample with over 50% indicating black race and an additional 19% identifying as mixed or other race. Both instruments demonstrated configural invariance for simultaneous analysis of cross-group and longitudinal invariance based on alternative fit indices. However, simultaneous metric invariance was not met for the PASE or the SEEB instruments. Partial metric invariance for the simultaneous analysis was achieved for the PASE with one factor loading identified as non-invariant. Partial metric invariance was not met for the SEEB. Longitudinal scalar invariance was achieved for both instruments in the control group but not the intervention group. Composite reliability for the PASE ranged from 0.772 to 0.842. Reliability for the SEEB ranged from 0.719 to 0.800 indicating higher reliability for the PASE. Reliability was more stable over time in the control group for both instruments. Conclusions: Results suggest that the intervention influenced how girls responded to indicator items. Neither of the instruments achieved simultaneous metric invariance making it difficult to assess mean differences in PA self-efficacy between groups.