Dataset Information

A Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis of the Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R).

ABSTRACT: Background/Objective: The Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R) is a widely applied instrument to measure obsessive-compulsive symptoms in clinical and nonclinical samples. We conducted a reliability generalization meta-analysis on the PI-R. Method: An exhaustive literature search yielded 118 empirical studies that had applied the PI-R, from which 30 studies (33 samples) reported an original reliability estimate. Results: Assuming a random-effects model, the average internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was .92 (95% CI [.91, .93]) for the total scores, and ranged from .74 to .89 for the subscales. Assuming mixed-effects models, moderator analyses showed a positive statistically significant association between the standard deviation of the total scores and the reliability coefficients (p = .002; R² = .38). Conclusions: In terms of reliability, the PI-R scale was found to be adequate for both research and clinical purposes, although exhibiting large heterogeneity across studies. Future empirical studies using the PI-R should be required to provide at least one reliability estimate based on their own data.

SUBMITTER: Nunez-Nunez RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8517387 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis of the Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R).

Núñez-Núñez Rosa María RM Rubio-Aparicio María M Marín-Martínez Fulgencio F Sánchez-Meca Julio J López-Pina José Antonio JA López-López José Antonio JA

International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP 20211011 1

Background/Objective: The Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R) is a widely applied instrument to measure obsessive-compulsive symptoms in clinical and nonclinical samples. We conducted a reliability generalization meta-analysis on the PI-R. Method: An exhaustive literature search yielded 118 empirical studies that had applied the PI-R, from which 30 studies (33 samples) reported an original reliability estimate. Results: Assuming a random-effects model, the average internal consis ...[more]

PMID: 34703467

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the pooled estimates of Cronbach's alpha of the Oral Impacts on Daily Performance (OIDP) questionnaire and explore the moderators that could have influenced the overall estimate.Materials and methodsA systematic search of common databases such as PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and CINAHL was performed from inception till 13th December 2024. Studies in English and those that reported Cronbach's alpha values for the OIDP questionnaire were included. Studies reported as letters, conference proceedings, or abstracts; secondary analysis of the previous data; studies with alpha values reported for pilot studies; modified versions of the OIDP questionnaires; induced reliability estimates; retracted articles; short communications; and commentaries were excluded. Two review authors independently screened the publications. The information collected included year of publication, country, sample size, age, sex distribution, target population, language of administration, mode of administration, study setting, study design, patient selection, Cronbach's alpha, and the number of items in the questionnaire. The risk of bias assessment was performed via the COSMIN checklist. Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis was performed via the random effects model (restricted maximum likelihood method) to obtain a pooled untransformed Cronbach's alpha.ResultsA total of 1069 publications were available for screening, and 54 publications yielded 63 estimates with a sample size of 92,564 (sample size range: 47-12647). The overall pooled Cronbach's alpha was 0.82 (95% CI = 0.8-0.84), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.75%; Q = 26702.91). Meta-regression revealed no effects of moderators such as sex (coefficient: 0.02), age (coefficient: 0), language (coefficient: 0), population type (coefficient: 0), continent (coefficient: -0.02), or mode of administration (coefficient: -0.03) on the overall estimate.ConclusionThe overall estimate of the Cronbach alpha for OIDP questionnaire was above the accepted benchmark. There was no effect of moderators such as sex, age, language, population type, continent, or mode of administration on the overall estimate.

Project description:BackgroundResilience, a critical multi-faceted construct in psychological research, is often measured using Conner-Davison Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-25). This reliability generalization (RG) meta-analysis delves into evaluate the level of reliability generalization estimate of both CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-25 in assessing resilience across diverse populations and settings.MethodsA reliability generalization meta-analysis on the psychometric properties of CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-25 was conducted, encompassing 27 studies. The original versions' psychometric properties were systematically retrieved from databases including PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus, with a focus on studies published between 2018 and 2023. The study protocol, including the specific methods for the reliability generalization meta-analysis, was pre-registered in the Prospero database (registration number CRD42023479052). This pre-registration ensures transparency and minimizes the risk of bias in the study design and analysis.ResultsThe analysis revealed a combined estimated overall estimate of Cronbach's Alpha of 0.89 (95% CI [0.87, 0.91], z = 77.20, p < 0.05), indicating a high level of reliability for CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-25. CD-RISC-10 exhibited an overall estimate of Cronbach's Alpha of 0.8732 (95% CI [0.85, 0.10], z = 69.81, p < 0.05), indicating a high level of reliability, while CD-RISC-25 also demonstrated an overall estimate of Cronbach's Alpha of 0.8922 (95% CI [0.87, 0.91], z = 77.20, p < 0.001), indicating a high level of reliability. Furthermore, CD-RISC-10 displayed commendable reliability (ωα+ = 0.86), slightly lower compared to the impressive reliability of CD-RISC-25 (ωα+ = 0.89), with a significant difference (t = 0.1159, p > 0.001). The mixed-effects model revealed a non-significant moderating effect of the CD-RISC language version on reliability estimates (coefficient = -0.0017, p <0.05).ConclusionThe results affirm the high overall reliability of both CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-25, with CD-RISC-25 exhibiting a slightly superior level. The non-significant moderating effect of language version suggests that the psychometric properties of these scales remain robust across different linguistic adaptations. These findings enhance our understanding of the CD-RISC scales, providing practitioners, researchers, and clinicians valuable insights for informed scale selection in diverse contexts. The commendable reliability of both scales underscores their utility in assessing and promoting resilience across varied populations and settings. Future research should explore specific contexts, demographics, and applications, enhancing their utility for diverse populations and settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe ORTO scale was developed in 2004 as a self-report questionnaire to assess symptoms of orthorexia nervosa (ON). ON is an unhealthy preoccupation with eating healthy food. The scale aims to measure obsessive attitudes and behaviors related to the selection, purchase, preparation, and consumption of pure, healthy food. Since its development, the ORTO-15 has been adapted into several shorter versions. The objective was to conduct a reliability generalization meta-analysis of the ORTO scale and its variant versions in all populations and languages.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting the internal consistency of ORTO. Random-effect models were used to evaluate summary statistics of reliability coefficients, weighting the coefficients by the inverse variance using the restricted maximum likelihood method. The heterogeneity among the reliability coefficients was evaluated and assessed using numerous statistical metrics. The tau (τ), tau2 (τ2), I2, H2, R2, df, and the Q-statistic are among those obtained. Meta-regression analyses were used to examine moderators such as age and sex.ResultsTwenty-one studies (k = 21) involving 11,167 participants (n = 11,167) were analyzed. The overall effect estimate on internal consistency was 0.59 (95% CI 0.49-0.68), with a minimum reliability coefficient of 0.23 and a maximum reliability coefficient of 0.83. The heterogeneity statistics were found to have an I2 of 99.31%, which suggested high heterogeneity owing to a decrease in the confidence interval (95% CI) and an increase in variability. Sensitivity analysis revealed that a few studies strongly influenced the overall estimate. Egger's test suggested possible publication bias. Neither age nor sex significantly moderated reliability via meta-regression.ConclusionsThe ORTO scale has a relatively low pooled reliability coefficient. Alternative ON assessment tools with enhanced psychometric properties are needed. Clinicians should not base diagnoses or treatment decisions on ORTO alone. Comprehensive psychiatric assessment is essential for accurate ON evaluation.

Dataset Information

A Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis of the Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R).

Publications

A Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis of the Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets