Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mohd Mydin FH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11358705 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review.
Mohd Mydin Fadzilah Hanum FH Mikton Christopher C Choo Wan Yuen WY Shunmugam Ranita Hisham RH Murray Aja A Yon Yongjie Y Yunus Raudah M RM Hairi Noran N NN Hairi Farizah M FM Beaulieu Marie M Phelan Amanda A
Campbell systematic reviews 20240829 3
<h4>Background</h4>The examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) is a crucial area of study that has, unfortunately, received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments can significantly contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.<h4>Objectives</h4>This review rigorously employed the ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe psychometric properties of elder abuse measurement instruments have not been well-studied. Poor psychometric properties of elder abuse measurement instruments may contribute to the inconsistency of elder abuse prevalence estimates and uncertainty about the magnitude of the problem at the national, regional, and global levels.ObjectivesThe present review will utilise the COSMIN taxonomy on the quality of outcome measures to identify and review the instruments used in measuring elder abuse, assess the instrument's measurement properties, and identify the definitions of elder abuse and abuse subtypes measured by the instrument.Search methodsSearches will be conducted in the following online databases: Ageline, ASSIA, CINAHL, CNKI, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LILACS, Proquest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract and WHO Index Medicus. Relevant studies will also be identified by searching the grey literature from several resources such as OpenAIRE, BASE, OISter and Age Concern NZPotential studies by searching the references of related reviews. We will contact experts who have conducted similar work or are currently conducting ongoing studies. Enquiries will also be sent to the relevant authors if any important data is missing, incomplete or unclear.Selection criteriaAll quantitative, qualitative (that address face and content validity), and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or the grey literature will be included in this review. Studies will be included if they are primary studies that (1) evaluate one or more psychometric properties; (2) contain information on instrument development, or (3) perform content validity of the instruments designed to measure elder abuse in the community or institutional settings. Studies should describe at least one of the psychometric properties, such as reliability, validity and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings (i.e., nursing homes, long-term care facilities, assisted living, residential care institutions, and residential facilities).Data collection and analysisScreening of titles, abstracts, and full texts of the selected studies will be evaluated based on the preset inclusion criteria by two reviewers. Two reviewers will be assessing the quality appraisal of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence of each psychometric property of the instrument against the updated criteria of good measurement properties. Any dispute between the two reviewers will be resolved through discussions or consensus with a third reviewer. The overall quality of the measurement instrument will be graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction will be performed using the data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. The information includes the characteristic of included instruments (name, adaptation, language used, translation and country of origin), characteristics of the tested population, psychometric properties listed in the COSMIN criteria, including details on the instrument development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness and interoperability. We will perform a meta-analysis to pool psychometric properties parameters (where possible) or summarise qualitatively.
| S-EPMC10296034 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Frailty is highly prevalent in older people. Its serious adverse consequences, such as disability, are considered to be a public health problem. Therefore, disability prevention in community-dwelling frail older people is considered to be a priority for research and clinical practice in geriatric care. With regard to disability prevention, valid screening instruments are needed to identify frail older people in time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the psychometric properties of three screening instruments: the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and the Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ). For validation purposes the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) was added. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 687 community-dwelling older people (> or = 70 years). Agreement between instruments, internal consistency, and construct validity of instruments were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The response rate was 77%. Prevalence estimates of frailty ranged from 40% to 59%. The highest agreement was found between the GFI and the TFI (Cohen's kappa = 0.74). Cronbach's alpha for the GFI, the TFI and the SPQ was 0.73, 0.79 and 0.26, respectively. Scores on the three instruments correlated significantly with each other (GFI - TFI, r = 0.87; GFI - SPQ, r = 0.47; TFI - SPQ, r = 0.42) and with the GARS (GFI - GARS, r = 0.57; TFI - GARS, r = 0.61; SPQ - GARS, r = 0.46). The GFI and the TFI scores were, as expected, significantly related to age, sex, education and income. CONCLUSIONS: The GFI and the TFI showed high internal consistency and construct validity in contrast to the SPQ. Based on these findings it is not yet possible to conclude whether the GFI or the TFI should be preferred; data on the predictive values of both instruments are needed. The SPQ seems less appropriate for postal screening of frailty among community-dwelling older people.
| S-EPMC2868816 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Informational overload hinders the recognition of quality information and influences a population's health-related decisions. In this context, media health literacy aims to promote citizens' critical analysis skills, contributing to informed decision-making. This study aims to identify the instruments used to measure the level of media health literacy and their psychometric properties.MethodsA systematic review of the scientific literature was performed in 2023. The articles were extracted from the electronic databases "Pubmed", "Web of Science", "Dialnet", and "Scopus". The search languages were limited to English, Spanish, and Portuguese.ResultsTwelve articles were selected for further analysis. The described measurement instruments included five original scales and seven cross-cultural adaptations of three of them. Four scales (the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Media Literacy scale adapted to Turkish and Chinese, along with the Media Health Literacy (MeHLit) scale and its adaptation to the Chinese language) exhibited high quality in the assessment of psychometric properties.ConclusionsThese instruments allow for the measurement of an individual's level of skill when consuming specific health information, enabling an analysis to understand the risk they are exposed to. Further research is recommended to strengthen the existing evidence and apply these tools to broader and more diverse populations.
| S-EPMC11503266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundActivities of daily living (ADL) are often used as predictors of health and function in older persons. This systematic review is part of a series initiated by the European Network for Action on Ageing and Physical Activity (EUNAAPA).AimTo assess psychometric properties of ADL instruments for use in older populations.MethodsElectronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, AMED, Psycinfo, CINAHL) were searched, using MeSH terms and relevant keywords. Studies, published in English, were included if they evaluated one or more psychometric properties of ADL instruments in community-dwelling older persons aged 60 years and older. Combination scales with IADL were excluded. This systematic review adhered to a pre-specified protocol regarding reliability, validity, and responsiveness.ResultsIn total, 140 articles describing more than 50 different ADL instruments were included. Ten instruments which were applied in minimally three different articles of good quality (clear descriptions and adequate design according to the protocol), were evaluated for reliability, validity and responsiveness; each received a summary score. The four instruments with the highest scores were the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF), 5-items Katz list (although content and wording are often inconsistent across studies), Functional Independence and Difficulty Scale (FIDS) and the Barthel Index.DiscussionCritical reflection is essential to avoid unnecessary modifications and use of instruments that have not been documented to be valid or reliable.ConclusionBased on this systematic review, we recommend the SMAF, 5-item Katz, FIDS and Barthel index as ADL measures for research and care practice in older populations.
| S-EPMC6589141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecognizing and appropriately responding to ethical considerations is a crucial element of ethical nursing practice. To mitigate instances of ethical incongruity in healthcare and to promote nurses' comprehension of their professional ethical responsibilities, it is imperative for researchers to accurately evaluate ethical sensitivity. Conducting a systematic review of the available instruments would enable practitioners to determine the most suitable instrument for implementation in the field of nursing.AimThis review aims to systematically assess the measurement properties of instruments used to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in July 2022 in the following electronic databases: Scopus, CINAHL, APAPsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the studies in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The updated criteria for good measurement properties are used to rate the result of measurement properties, and the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to grade the quality of the summarized evidence.ResultsThis review encompasses a total of 29 studies that describe 11 different instruments. Neither cross-cultural validity nor responsiveness was examined in any of the included studies. Whereas the majority of the instruments were conducted with at least some type of validity assessment, nearly all of the reliability results rated were indeterminate. Two instruments were recommended, the Ethical Sensitivity Questionnaire for Nursing Students (ESQ-NS) and the Ethical Awareness Scale for nurses in intensive care units. It is recommended that new self-administration instruments for special nursing settings be developed in accordance with the item response theory (IRT)/Rasch model.ConclusionThe selection of ethical sensitivity measurement instruments in nursing, and further research on the development, psychometric, and cross-cultural adaptation of these instruments, could be conducted in accordance with the findings and suggestions of this systematic review.Strengths and limitations• This review was conducted to assess 11 instruments that were used to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing in 29 studies. • The Ethical Sensitivity Questionnaire for Nursing Students (ESQ-NS) and the Ethical Awareness Scale for nurses in intensive care units can be recommended, but further reliability and cross-cultural validity testing are needed. • The IRT/Rasch model is also recommended to measure ethical sensitivity in nursing. • The potential limitation of utilizing the COSMIN checklist for assessing methodological quality is worth considering. • Test-retest was considered inappropriate; thus, the reliability testing of ethical sensitivity measurement instruments still needs to be explored.
| S-EPMC11577582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver the last two decades, abuse of older adults in institutional settings has been underestimated due to challenges in defining and responding to the issue. This systematic review aims to analyze empirical studies on measuring abuse of older people residing in a long-term care facility, specifically staff-to-resident abuse.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched 10 databases from January 2005 till June 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed World Health Organization-defined abuse types (physical, psychological, financial, sexual and neglect, intentional or unintentional), reported by staff, residents, family, or public registries, with methodological critical assessment.FindingsIn the last 18 years, 22 studies from eight counties examined of staff-to-resident abuse, with significant heterogeneity in definitions, reporting sources, and measurement tools. Quality of studies varied, lacking consistency. Relatives and staff typically report highest abuse rates, while residents report fewer incidents, even with fewer incidents of observed abuse. Registries tend to capture extreme cases, resulting in lower reported prevalence rates, particularly of physical or sexual abuse and neglect. Physical abuse was the most reported, with 81 different descriptors identified and varying recall periods. Staff witnessing abuse ranged from 44% over four weeks to as low as 1.4% over 12 months, posing challenges for data interpretation.ConclusionThese variations in study methodologies impacted the ability to synthesise the findings making it difficult to estimate a global prevalence rate of aged care abuse. From the analysis, we develop an Aged Care Abuse Research Checklist (ACARC) as a first step towards achieving a global standardized, evidence-based methodology for this field. Doing so will normalize processes within organizations and the community, allowing early interventions to change practices, reduce the risk of recurrence and improve resident quality of care and workplace cultures.Registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018055484.
| S-EPMC11892848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Valid, meaningful, and reliable adult retrospective measures of violence against children (VAC) are essential for establishing the prevalence, risk factors, and long-term effects of VAC. We aim to summarize the available evidence on the psychometric properties of adult retrospective VAC measures and to provide evidence-based recommendations for appropriate measure selection. We searched six electronic databases and gray literature for studies that report on the development, content validity, or psychometric properties of adult retrospective child abuse and neglect measures for this review (PROSPERO: CRD4201706). We used the 2018 Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria to evaluate each included study and measure. We assessed if measures included questions on frequency or severity, the perpetrator, or the location of the violence, and noted the administrative practicalities for each instrument such as length, readability, available translations, and cost to access. We identified 288 studies and 77 measures. The quality of evidence ranged from "low" to "high," depending on the measure and the psychometric properties assessed. The measures with the most robust evidence available across multiple contexts are the: ACE and ACE-IQ; FBQ and FBQ-U; CTQ and CTQ-SF; and ICAST-R. This review shows the strengths and weaknesses of retrospective VAC measures. The substantial evidence presented in this review can be used by researchers to make psychometrically sound decisions for measurement selection which should be supported by extensive piloting and adaptation to the respective local context.
| S-EPMC10666516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The World Health Organization has developed a brief generic questionnaire to assess quality of life, the WHOQOL-BREF. It has been studied in diverse groups, but not specifically in older people. The purpose of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of the French version of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire in healthy older people and to compare the mean profiles of participants with the mean profile obtained in the international validation study of the WHOQOL-BREF. Of the total sample of 262 Swiss French speaking older participants, 122 completed a retest after 2 weeks. The WHOQOL-BREF items demonstrated high test-retest reliability and validity. The WHOQOL-BREF items were differentially related to physical and mental health measures (SF-12 components, morbidity, and depression), thereby demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity. Compared to the international validation sample of the WHOQOL-BREF, participants of the present study reported higher QOL on 22 of the 26 items. A comparison of item profiles between male and female participants revealed gender differences for two items only (social support and negative feelings). We conclude that the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF items in older adults are good. To consider the 24 specific facets that are assessed by the WHOQOL-BREF appropriately, we recommend using item profiles on the individual and the sample level.
| S-EPMC5546259 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: To better accommodate for the complex care needs of frail, older people, general practitioners must be capable of easily identifying frailty in daily clinical practice, for example, by using the frailty index (FI). To explore whether the FI is a valid and adequate screening instrument for primary care, we conducted a systematic review of its psychometric properties. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases and included original studies focusing on the criterion validity, construct validity and responsiveness of the FI when applied in community-dwelling older people. We evaluated the quality of the studies included using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. This systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: Of the twenty studies identified, eighteen reported on FIs derived from research data, one reported upon an FI derived from an administrative database of home-care clients, and one reported upon an FI derived from routine primary care data. In general, the FI showed good criterion and construct validity but lacked studies on responsiveness. When compared with studies that used data gathered for research purposes, there are indications that the FI mean score and range might be different in datasets using routine primary care data; however, this finding needs further investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the FI is a valid frailty screening instrument. However, further research using routine Electronic Medical Record data is necessary to investigate whether the psychometric properties of the FI are generalizable to a primary care setting and to facilitate its interpretation and implementation in daily clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO systematic review register number: CRD42013003737.
| S-EPMC3946826 | biostudies-other
Project description:PURPOSE:Adverse childhood experiences in sensitive periods of the developing brain render the individual at a life-long risk for a broad spectrum of aberrant health outcomes. However, there is a lack of scales for the comprehensive assessment of adverse childhood experiences providing information of various types and the age of occurrence. Based on the complete, experimental version of the Maltreatment and abuse chronology of exposure (MACE-X) scale, the present study aimed to develop and psychometrically test a Norwegian version of MACE. METHODS:The 75-item MACE-X was translated from German to Norwegian and administered as a self-report measure to 90 outpatients and 145 employees at a Division of specialized mental health care in South-Eastern Norway. The outpatients also completed the Childhood trauma questionnaire (CTQ) and the Symptom checklist 90 (SCL-90) to investigate convergent and predictive validity. To investigate test-retest reliability, outpatients completed MACE once more two weeks later. RESULTS:Rasch analysis and Anderson likelihood ratio tests on the combined outpatient and employee data resulted in a 55 item version of the Norwegian MACE. In the outpatient group, test-retest reliability of the MACE-55 was excellent for total scores (ICC ≥ 0.94) and good to excellent for 10 subscale scores (ICC ≥ 0.82). Convergent validity with the CTQ was moderate to high for both total scores (0.63 ≥ r ≥ 0.86) and subscale scores (0.56 ≥ r ≥ 0.82). As compared to CTQ total scores, a MACE total score that combined severity and duration of exposure was numerically more strongly associated with overall psychiatric symptoms and each of nine symptom domains on the SCL-90. CONCLUSIONS:The newly developed Norwegian MACE comprehensively assesses past exposure to adverse childhood experiences with high psychometric properties. This scale is a useful tool for research questions addressing sensitive periods for childhood adversities and associated health phenotypes.
| S-EPMC7046287 | biostudies-literature