Assessing Features of Psychometric Assessment Instruments: A Comparison of the COSMIN Checklist with Other Critical Appraisal Tools

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Brain Impairment Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI:10.1017/BrImp.2017.29
Ulrike Rosenkoetter, R. Tate
{"title":"Assessing Features of Psychometric Assessment Instruments: A Comparison of the COSMIN Checklist with Other Critical Appraisal Tools","authors":"Ulrike Rosenkoetter, R. Tate","doi":"10.1017/BrImp.2017.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The past 20 years have seen the development of instruments designed to specify standards and evaluate the adequacy of published studies with respect to the quality of study design, the quality of findings, as well as the quality of their reporting. In the field of psychometrics, the first minimum set of standards for the review of psychometric instruments was published in 1996 by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Since then, a number of tools have been developed with similar aims. The present paper reviews basic psychometric properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness), compares six tools developed for the critical appraisal of psychometric studies and provides a worked example of using the COSMIN checklist, Terwee-m statistical quality criteria, and the levels of evidence synthesis using the method of Schellingerhout and colleagues (2012). This paper will aid users and reviewers of questionnaires in the quality appraisal and selection of appropriate instruments by presenting available assessment tools, their characteristics and utility.","PeriodicalId":56329,"journal":{"name":"Brain Impairment","volume":"19 1","pages":"103 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Impairment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.29","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

The past 20 years have seen the development of instruments designed to specify standards and evaluate the adequacy of published studies with respect to the quality of study design, the quality of findings, as well as the quality of their reporting. In the field of psychometrics, the first minimum set of standards for the review of psychometric instruments was published in 1996 by the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Since then, a number of tools have been developed with similar aims. The present paper reviews basic psychometric properties (reliability, validity and responsiveness), compares six tools developed for the critical appraisal of psychometric studies and provides a worked example of using the COSMIN checklist, Terwee-m statistical quality criteria, and the levels of evidence synthesis using the method of Schellingerhout and colleagues (2012). This paper will aid users and reviewers of questionnaires in the quality appraisal and selection of appropriate instruments by presenting available assessment tools, their characteristics and utility.
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
心理测量评估工具的评估特征:COSMIN核对表与其他关键评估工具的比较
在过去的20年里,我们看到了各种工具的发展,这些工具旨在明确标准,并从研究设计的质量、研究结果的质量以及报告的质量等方面评价已发表研究的充分性。在心理测量学领域,医疗成果信托基金科学咨询委员会于1996年出版了第一套审查心理测量工具的最低标准。从那时起,许多工具都以类似的目的被开发出来。本文回顾了心理测量学的基本特性(信度、效度和反应性),比较了为心理测量学研究的批判性评估而开发的六种工具,并提供了使用COSMIN清单、terwe -m统计质量标准和使用Schellingerhout及其同事(2012)方法的证据合成水平的工作示例。本文将通过介绍可用的评估工具,其特点和效用,帮助问卷的用户和审稿人进行质量评估和选择适当的工具。
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
Brain Impairment
Brain Impairment CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal addresses topics related to the aetiology, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes of brain impairment with a particular focus on the implications for functional status, participation, rehabilitation and quality of life. Disciplines reflect a broad multidisciplinary scope and include neuroscience, neurology, neuropsychology, psychiatry, clinical psychology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology, social work, and nursing. Submissions are welcome across the full range of conditions that affect brain function (stroke, tumour, progressive neurological illnesses, dementia, traumatic brain injury, epilepsy, etc.) throughout the lifespan.
期刊最新文献
Defining the scope of clinical practice guidelines for managing psychosocial difficulties following moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Reconceptualising the factor structure of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) for traumatic brain injury. Experience-based co-design of a smartphone app for post-stroke aphasia self-management: a process evaluation. An exploratory study of working alliance in traumatic brain injury peer support. 'I went home not feeling prepared from the outset': describing the co-design of a technological solution to address gaps in the transition from hospital to home for people with acquired brain injury.
×
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:604180095
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