智障人士挑战行为和行为功能的测量工具:对内部一致性、评分者间可靠性和测试-再测可靠性的系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-04-16 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102434
Lauren Shelley , Chris Jones , Effie Pearson , Caroline Richards , Hayley Crawford , Arianna Paricos , Courtney Greenhill , Alixandra Woodhead , Joanne Tarver , Jane Waite
{"title":"智障人士挑战行为和行为功能的测量工具:对内部一致性、评分者间可靠性和测试-再测可靠性的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Lauren Shelley ,&nbsp;Chris Jones ,&nbsp;Effie Pearson ,&nbsp;Caroline Richards ,&nbsp;Hayley Crawford ,&nbsp;Arianna Paricos ,&nbsp;Courtney Greenhill ,&nbsp;Alixandra Woodhead ,&nbsp;Joanne Tarver ,&nbsp;Jane Waite","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Behaviours that challenge (BtC) are common in people with intellectual disability (ID) and associated with negative long-term outcomes. Reliable characterisation of BtC and behavioural function is integral to person-centred interventions. This systematic review and meta-analytic study quantitatively synthesised the evidence-base for the internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability of measures of BtC and behavioural function in people with ID (PROSPERO: CRD42021239042). Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO and MEDLINE were searched from inception to March 2024. Retrieved records (<em>n</em> = 3691) were screened independently to identify studies assessing eligible measurement properties in people with ID. Data extracted from 83 studies, across 29 measures, were synthesised in a series of random-effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses assessed the influence of methodological quality and study-level characteristics on pooled estimates. COSMIN criteria were used to evaluate the measurement properties of each measure. Pooled estimates ranged across measures: internal consistency (0.41–0.97), inter-rater reliability (0.29–0.93) and test-retest reliability (0.52–0.98). The quantity and quality of evidence varied substantially across measures; evidence was frequently unavailable or limited to a single study. Based on current evidence, candidate measures with the most evidence for internal consistency and reliability are discussed; however, continued assessment of measurement properties in ID populations is a key priority.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 102434"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000552/pdfft?md5=a913aeee5d92ff07a7f7b0ebf2955a34&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824000552-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurement tools for behaviours that challenge and behavioural function in people with intellectual disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Shelley ,&nbsp;Chris Jones ,&nbsp;Effie Pearson ,&nbsp;Caroline Richards ,&nbsp;Hayley Crawford ,&nbsp;Arianna Paricos ,&nbsp;Courtney Greenhill ,&nbsp;Alixandra Woodhead ,&nbsp;Joanne Tarver ,&nbsp;Jane Waite\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102434\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Behaviours that challenge (BtC) are common in people with intellectual disability (ID) and associated with negative long-term outcomes. Reliable characterisation of BtC and behavioural function is integral to person-centred interventions. This systematic review and meta-analytic study quantitatively synthesised the evidence-base for the internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability of measures of BtC and behavioural function in people with ID (PROSPERO: CRD42021239042). Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO and MEDLINE were searched from inception to March 2024. Retrieved records (<em>n</em> = 3691) were screened independently to identify studies assessing eligible measurement properties in people with ID. Data extracted from 83 studies, across 29 measures, were synthesised in a series of random-effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses assessed the influence of methodological quality and study-level characteristics on pooled estimates. COSMIN criteria were used to evaluate the measurement properties of each measure. Pooled estimates ranged across measures: internal consistency (0.41–0.97), inter-rater reliability (0.29–0.93) and test-retest reliability (0.52–0.98). The quantity and quality of evidence varied substantially across measures; evidence was frequently unavailable or limited to a single study. Based on current evidence, candidate measures with the most evidence for internal consistency and reliability are discussed; however, continued assessment of measurement properties in ID populations is a key priority.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"110 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102434\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000552/pdfft?md5=a913aeee5d92ff07a7f7b0ebf2955a34&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824000552-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000552\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000552","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

摘要

挑战行为(BtC)在智障人士(ID)中很常见,并与长期的不良后果相关。可靠地描述 BtC 和行为功能是以人为本的干预措施不可或缺的一部分。本系统综述和荟萃分析研究对智障人士 BtC 和行为功能测量的内部一致性、评分者间可靠性和测试-再测可靠性的证据基础进行了定量综合(PROSPERO:CRD42021239042)。检索了从开始到 2024 年 3 月的 Web of Science、Embase、PsycINFO 和 MEDLINE。对检索到的记录(n = 3691)进行了独立筛选,以确定对智障人士进行符合条件的测量属性评估的研究。对从 83 项研究中提取的 29 种测量数据进行了一系列随机效应荟萃分析。分组分析评估了方法学质量和研究水平特征对汇总估计值的影响。COSMIN 标准用于评估每种测量方法的测量属性。各测量指标的汇总估计值不尽相同:内部一致性(0.41-0.97)、评分者间可靠性(0.29-0.93)和测试-再测可靠性(0.52-0.98)。不同测量方法的证据数量和质量差别很大;证据往往不可用或仅限于一项研究。根据目前的证据,本文讨论了内部一致性和可靠性证据最多的候选测量指标;然而,继续评估智障人群的测量特性是当务之急。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Measurement tools for behaviours that challenge and behavioural function in people with intellectual disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability

Behaviours that challenge (BtC) are common in people with intellectual disability (ID) and associated with negative long-term outcomes. Reliable characterisation of BtC and behavioural function is integral to person-centred interventions. This systematic review and meta-analytic study quantitatively synthesised the evidence-base for the internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability of measures of BtC and behavioural function in people with ID (PROSPERO: CRD42021239042). Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO and MEDLINE were searched from inception to March 2024. Retrieved records (n = 3691) were screened independently to identify studies assessing eligible measurement properties in people with ID. Data extracted from 83 studies, across 29 measures, were synthesised in a series of random-effects meta-analyses. Subgroup analyses assessed the influence of methodological quality and study-level characteristics on pooled estimates. COSMIN criteria were used to evaluate the measurement properties of each measure. Pooled estimates ranged across measures: internal consistency (0.41–0.97), inter-rater reliability (0.29–0.93) and test-retest reliability (0.52–0.98). The quantity and quality of evidence varied substantially across measures; evidence was frequently unavailable or limited to a single study. Based on current evidence, candidate measures with the most evidence for internal consistency and reliability are discussed; however, continued assessment of measurement properties in ID populations is a key priority.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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 Why most research based on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test is unsubstantiated and uninterpretable: A response to Murphy and Hall (2024) Five-factor personality traits and functional somatic disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis What is fidelity? A systematic review of provider fidelity and its associations with engagement and outcomes in parenting programs Prevalence of mental health conditions, substance use disorders, suicidal ideation and attempts, and experiences of homelessness among Veterans with criminal-legal involvement: A meta-analysis
×
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