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 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