Measurement properties of tools used to assess self-harm in autistic and general population adults

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102412
Victoria Newell , Ellen Townsend , Caroline Richards , Sarah Cassidy
{"title":"Measurement properties of tools used to assess self-harm in autistic and general population adults","authors":"Victoria Newell ,&nbsp;Ellen Townsend ,&nbsp;Caroline Richards ,&nbsp;Sarah Cassidy","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Autistic people are at increased risk of experiencing self-harm compared to the general population. However, it is unclear which tools are being used to assess self-harm in autistic people, or whether existing tools need to be adapted for this group. This two-stage systematic review aimed to identify tools used to assess self-harm in autistic and general population adults, evaluate these tools on their measurement properties, and make recommendations for their appropriate use in research and clinical practice. Four databases were systematically searched (PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science). Eight frequently used self-harm assessment tools were identified and assessed for risk of bias, criteria for good measurement properties, and quality of evidence using the COSMIN checklist. Of these, two tools had sufficient evidence of internal consistency (ISAS, QNSSI), and one had been frequently used with autistic adults (NSSI-AT). These three tools may have potential for use with autistic adults but require further investigation for content validity and measurement properties in the autistic population. More research and potential adaptations to current self-harm assessment tools are recommended in order to better conceptualise and understand self-harm and its measurement in autism.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 102412"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000333/pdfft?md5=006574021e773c8cca43e6e08936a8c0&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824000333-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000333","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Autistic people are at increased risk of experiencing self-harm compared to the general population. However, it is unclear which tools are being used to assess self-harm in autistic people, or whether existing tools need to be adapted for this group. This two-stage systematic review aimed to identify tools used to assess self-harm in autistic and general population adults, evaluate these tools on their measurement properties, and make recommendations for their appropriate use in research and clinical practice. Four databases were systematically searched (PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science). Eight frequently used self-harm assessment tools were identified and assessed for risk of bias, criteria for good measurement properties, and quality of evidence using the COSMIN checklist. Of these, two tools had sufficient evidence of internal consistency (ISAS, QNSSI), and one had been frequently used with autistic adults (NSSI-AT). These three tools may have potential for use with autistic adults but require further investigation for content validity and measurement properties in the autistic population. More research and potential adaptations to current self-harm assessment tools are recommended in order to better conceptualise and understand self-harm and its measurement in autism.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于评估自闭症成人和普通成人自我伤害的工具的测量特性
与普通人相比,自闭症患者自我伤害的风险更高。然而,目前尚不清楚哪些工具被用于评估自闭症患者的自我伤害,也不清楚现有工具是否需要针对这一群体进行调整。本系统性综述分为两个阶段,旨在确定用于评估成人自闭症患者和普通人群自残情况的工具,评估这些工具的测量特性,并就其在研究和临床实践中的适当使用提出建议。我们系统地检索了四个数据库(PsycINFO、Embase、MEDLINE 和 Web of Science)。确定了八种常用的自残评估工具,并使用 COSMIN 检查表对其偏倚风险、良好测量特性标准和证据质量进行了评估。其中,只有两种工具(ISAS 和 QNSSI)具有充分的内部一致性证据,一种工具(NSSI-AT)经常用于自闭症成人。这三种工具可能有潜力用于成年自闭症患者,但需要进一步研究其在自闭症人群中的内容效度和测量特性。建议开展更多研究,并对当前的自残评估工具进行可能的调整,以便更好地概念化和理解自闭症患者的自残及其测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board How a strong measurement validity review can go astray: A look at Higgins et al. (2024) and recommendations for future measurement-focused reviews Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis The impact of interventions for depression on self-perceptions in young people: A systematic review & meta-analysis Corrigendum to “Network meta-analysis examining efficacy of components of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia’ [Clinical Psychology Review 114 (2024) 102507].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1