COnsensus-based Standards For The Selection Of Health Measurement INstruments Checklist Research Articles

Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures assessing recovery from hand fractures: a systematic review.

To extensively review Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to assess outcomes in persons with hand fractures in terms of their psychometric properties. A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodological review was conducted. Six electronic databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL) for studies evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs assessing recovery from hand fracture. Titles and abstracts, full text review, quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved after review by a third, expert reviewer. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the COSMIN checklist. This COSMIN review found that there were only 4 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria in terms of assessing measurement properties of PROMs in hand fractures. Only the construct validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), the Quick DASH (QDASH) and the Duruoz Hand Index (DHI), and the responsiveness of the DASH, the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) were assessed in these studies. The overall rating of the studies was assessed as insufficient or indeterminate and quality of evidence was assessed as moderate, low, or very low by our team. This study identified that there is a lack of evidence in the medical literature with regards to the measurement properties of PROMs in patients with hand fractures. The 4 included studies do not provide good quality data to support the use of these PROMS in patients with hand fractures. There is a need for more studies for more PROMs. This has important consequences for how outcomes will be measured in clinical studies in hand research and in clinical practice.

Validated German PROMs for People with Major Amputation of the Lower Extremity - A Narrative Review Based on the Final Report of the LEAD and COMPASS Initiative of the ISPO

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) play an important role in the rehabilitation of people with major limb amputations. Patient-completed questionnaires help collect specific constructs on this patient population. The COMPASS and LEAD initiatives, carried out by the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics (ISPO), underscore the importance of regularly collecting high-quality PROMs. These are essential for the evaluation of rehabilitation needs, progress, and success. In the final report of ISPO's major international initiative, PROMs recommendations of the expert panel are tabulated. In Table 3.2 of the report, ISPO lists n=12 PROMs that were included in the narrow consensus process were considered to be of acceptable quality, and therefore recommended. The aim of this systematic review was to specifically search for these recommended PROMS regarding their availability in a German and validated version in order to identify potential gaps. All PROMs that were available in a German and validated version were then examined further with regard to the quality of the validation study, using the checklist of COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Through a systematic literature search, six validated German-language versions were found. Only four of these met the quality standards of the COSMIN checklist sufficiently. Overall, this review shows serious gaps in the availability in the German language of validated versions of PROMs used internationally and recommended as standard by the ISPO. This gap needs to be closed by guideline-oriented translation and subsequent validation studies in order to be able to offer and collect the PROMS recommended by the ISPO also for German-speaking patient populations.

Measurement Instruments Assessing Multi-Faceted Stigma Regarding Sexual and Gender Minorities: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties.

Stigma against sexual and gender minorities (SGM) populations has serious negative health effects for SGM populations. Despite the growing need for accurate stigma measurement in SGM, there are insufficient valid measurement instruments. Moreover, the lack of consistency in construct usage makes comparisons across studies particularly challenging. A critical review and comparative evaluation of the psychometric properties of the various stigma measures for SGM is necessary to advance our understanding regarding stigma measurement against/among SGMs. Based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) for empirical articles published from 2010 to 2022 that evaluated the psychometrics properties of measurement instruments assessing stigma against SGMs. The screening, extraction, and scoring of the psychometric properties and methodological quality of selected instruments were performed by following the established standards and COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist, respectively. Of the 2031 studies identified, 19 studies were included that reported psychometric properties of 17 measurement instruments. All instruments, except two, were developed for SGMs (n = 15/17). Most instruments included men who have sex with men (MSM) or gay men (n = 11/15), whereas less than half of the instruments assessed stigma among SGM women (n = 6/15). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and content validity was reported for all instruments (n = 17); construct and structural validity was also reported for majority of the instruments (n = 15 and 10, respectively). However, test-retest reliability and criterion validity was reported for very few instruments (n = 5 each). Based on the COSMIN checklist, we identified the most psychometrically and methodologically robust instruments for each of the five stigma types: combined stigma, enacted stigma, internalized stigma, intersectional stigma, and perceived stigma. For each stigma type, except anticipated stigma, at least one instrument demonstrated strong promise for use in empirical research; however, the selection of instrument depends on the target population and context of the study. Findings indicated a growing use of instruments assessing multiple stigma types. Future studies need to develop intersectional stigma instruments that account for the multiple and intersecting social identities of SGMs. Additionally, most existing instruments would benefit from further psychometric testing, especially on test-retest reliability, criterion validity, adaptability to different LGBTQIA + populations and cultures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinimetric properties of the core outcome measurement instruments for clinical effectiveness trials of nutritional and metabolic interventions in critical illness (CONCISE)

BackgroundCONCISE is an internationally agreed minimum set of outcomes for use in nutritional and metabolic clinical research in critically ill adults. Clinicians and researchers need to be aware of the clinimetric properties of these instruments and understand any limitations to ensure valid and reliable research. This systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the measurement instruments identified in CONCISE.MethodsFour electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted.ResultsA total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The risk of bias ranged from inadequate to very good. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to high.ConclusionsVariable evidence exists to support the clinimetric properties of the CONCISE measurement instruments. We suggest using this review alongside CONCISE to guide outcome selection for future trials of nutrition and metabolic interventions in critical illness.Trial registration : PROSPERO (CRD42023438187). Registered 21/06/2023.

Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk. We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity. The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies' findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies' methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.

Measurement Properties of Self-Report Questionnaires for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Commonly Used Instruments.

(1) Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease. There is no evidence on the analysis of the measurement instruments available to assess quality of life in these patients, following the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist; (2) Methods: A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Embase, PEDro, Web of Science and Cochrane. The psychometric properties of the questionnaires were determined by using the COSMIN checklist. Two searches were carried out. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021249005); (3) Results: There were four published articles that analysed the measurement properties in patients with ALS for the following scales: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire 40, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Short Form 36 Healthy Survey, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Sickness Impact Profile. Another five scales also met the inclusion criteria: ALS-Depression-Inventory, State Trait Anxiety-Inventory, World Health Organization Quality of Life, Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire 5. Most Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) present a low-quality synthesis of evidence. It was observed an excellent pooled reliability of 0.92 (95% Confidence Interval: 0.83-0.96, I2 = 87.3%) for four dimensions for questionnaires ALSAQ-40. (4) Conclusions: There is little evidence on generic instruments. Future studies are necessary to develop new tools.

Measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals: A systematic review using the COSMIN checklist.

This systematic review aimed to investigate the measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals. According to the PRISMA guidelines, a registered report protocol was previously published in this journal. Studies reporting the development and validation of acute and chronic pain scoring instruments based on behavioral and/or facial expressions of farm animals were searched. Data extraction and assessment were performed individually by two investigators using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Nine categories were assessed: two for scale development (general design requirements and development, and content validity and comprehensibility) and seven for measurement properties (internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness and cross-cultural validity). The overall strength of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low) of each instrument was scored based on methodological quality, number of studies and studies' findings. Twenty instruments for three species (bovine, ovine and swine) were included. There was considerable variability concerning their development and measurement properties. Three behavior-based instruments scored high for strength of evidence: UCAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Unidimensional Composite Pain Scale for assessing postoperative pain in cattle), USAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Sheep Acute Composite Pain Scale) and UPAPS (Unesp-Botucatu Pig Composite Acute Pain Scale). Four instruments scored moderate for strength of evidence: MPSS (Multidimensional Pain Scoring System for bovine), SPFES (Sheep Pain Facial Expression Scale), LGS (Lamb Grimace Scale) and PGS-B (Piglet Grimace Scale-B). Most instruments (n = 13) scored low or very low for final overall evidence. Construct validity was the most reported measurement property followed by criterion validity and reliability. Instruments with reported validation are urgently required for pain assessment of buffalos, goats, camelids and avian species.

The Framework of Designing, Reporting, and Evaluating the Methodological Quality for Psychometric Studies: The Revised COSMIN Checklists

Background and Objectives: One of the challenges in studies related to measuring patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is the selection of an appropriate measurement tool. In this regard, compliance with standards in design and reporting of psychometric studies is necessity. In addition, researchers should be able to correctly evaluate the methodological quality of psychometric studies. Considering the presentation of the revised forms for the consensus-based standards for the selection of health Measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist, this study aims to review these checklists. Methods: In this narrative review study, a search was conducted in national and international databases for articles measured the quality of psychometric studies by COSMIN checklist using related keywords in Persian and English with no time limitations. The results are presented in two sections, including the history of COSMIN checklist and the introduction of its revised forms. Results: There are four COSMIN checklists, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist, the COSMIN Risk of Bias Tool (by focusing on reliability and measurement error), the COSMIN Study Design Checklist, and the COSMIN Reporting Guideline. Conclusion: Considering the increasing number of psychometric studies on the PRO measurement tools, the COSMIN checklists can provide comprehensive indicators for designing, reporting, and evaluating these studies.

Measurement Properties of the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory (MPAI-4) and Related Measures: A Systematic Review

<h3>Objective(s)</h3> (1) To assess the MPAI-4 and related measure's (e.g., Participation Index (M2PI)) measurement properties and evidence quality; and (2) identify the interpretability and feasibility of these measures. <h3>Data Sources</h3> Two independent reviewers searched nine electronic databases and trials registries from inception to 2021 using the 2018 COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines for systematic reviews. <h3>Study Selection</h3> Forty-eight of the 605 retrieved peer-reviewed primary articles concerning the MPAI-4 or related measures were retained. <h3>Data Extraction</h3> We extracted study and patient characteristics, critically appraised risk-of-bias (COSMIN checklist) and rated the extracted results. <h3>Data Synthesis</h3> We used COSMIN's approach to synthesize measurement properties (insufficient, sufficient), and modified GRADE approach to assess evidence quality (very low, low, moderate, high) by diagnosis (traumatic brain injury (TBI), stroke) and setting (inpatient, outpatient). The MPAI-4 is sufficiently comprehensible (GRADE: very low), with no evidence reported for its relevance or comprehensiveness. The MPAI-4 and M2PI have sufficient interrater reliability for stroke and TBI outpatients (GRADE: moderate), whereas interrater reliability between TBI inpatients and clinicians is insufficient (GRADE: moderate). There is no evidence for measurement error. The MPAI-4 and M2PI have sufficient construct validity and responsiveness across TBI inpatients (GRADE: high) and outpatients (GRADE: high), and stroke outpatients (GRADE: moderate-high). There is one study with mixed insufficient/sufficient evidence for each adapted version (21- and 22-item MPAI, 9-item M2PI) (GRADE: low-high). <h3>Conclusions</h3> In response to recent outcome standardization initiatives using the MPAI-4 and M2PI, this systematic review provides diagnosis and setting-specific supporting evidence for each measure. The MPAI-4 and M2PI have sufficient evidence to support their use in TBI inpatient and outpatient, and stroke outpatient populations. Adapted versions of the MPAI-4 warrant further study to generate clear recommendations for use. Since the MPAI-4 and related measures are formative as opposed to reflective models, structural validity, internal consistency and cross-cultural validity results are uninterpretable. Future studies should focus on measurement properties congruent with a formative model, especially reliability, measurement error, content validity and predictive validity. <h3>Author(s) Disclosures</h3> The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Conceptualisation and psychometric evaluation of positive psychological outcome measures used in adolescents and young adults living with HIV: a mixed scoping and systematic review protocol

IntroductionSub-Saharan Africa bears the greatest burden of HIV. Concomitant mental disorders are common, necessitating the integration of mental healthcare into routine HIV care. Consequently, it is necessary to holistically evaluate...

A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties of Knee-Related Outcome Measures Translated, Cross-Culturally Adapted, and Validated in Arabic Language.

During the previous two decades, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been well tested, and the tools were validated in different languages across the globe. This systematic review aimed to identify the knee disease-specific outcome tools in Arabic and evaluate their methodological quality of psychometric properties of the most promising tools based on the COSMIN checklist and PRISMA guidelines. Articles published in English, from the inception of databases until the date of search (10 August 2022), were included. Articles without at least one psychometric property (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) evaluation, and articles other than in the English language, were excluded from the study. The key terms [“Arabic” AND “Knee” AND (“Questionnaire” OR “Scale”)] were used in three databases, i.e., PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) in the advanced search strategy. Key terms were either in the title or abstract for PubMed. Key words were in the topic (TS) for WoS. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) risk of bias checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of psychometric properties of the Arabic knee-related outcome measures. A total of 99 articles were identified in PubMed, SCOPUS, and WoS. After passing inclusion and exclusion criteria, 20 articles describing 22 scales from five countries were included in this review. The instruments validated in the Arabic language are Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), knee outcome survey- activities of daily living scale (KOS-ADLS), Oxford knee score (OKS), anterior knee pain scale, osteoarthritis of knee and hip health-related quality of life (OAKHQoL) scale, Lysholm knee score (LKS), international documentation committee subjective knee form (IKDC), intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP) questionnaire, Kujala patellofemoral pain scoring system (PFPSS), anterior knee pain scale (AKPS) and osteoarthritis quality of life questionnaire (OAQoL),. All were found to have good test-retest reliability (Intra Correlation Coefficient), internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), and construct validity (Visual Analog Scale, Short Form-12, RAND-36, etc.). Of 20 instruments available to assess self-reported knee symptoms and function, 12 were validated in the Saudi Arabian population. Among them, KOS-ADLS is the best PROM to be used in various knee conditions, followed by KOOS and WOMAC. The assessed methodological quality of evidence says that the knee Arabic PROMs are reliable instruments to evaluate knee symptoms/function.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Acne Vulgaris

Multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) exist for patients with acne. However, little is known about the content validity and other measurement properties of these PROMs. To systematically review PROMs for HRQoL in adults or adolescents with acne. Eligible studies were extracted from PubMed and Embase (OVID). Full-text articles published in English or Spanish on development, pilot, or validation studies for acne-specific, dermatology-specific, or generic HRQoL PROMs were included. Development studies included original development studies, even if not studied in acne patients per Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations. If a study included several diagnoses, the majority (ie, over 50%) of patients must have acne or acne-specific subgroup analyses must be available. Abstract and full-text screening was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Two independent reviewers assessed study quality applying the COSMIN checklist and extracted and analyzed the data. For each distinctive PROM, quality of evidence was graded by measurement property. PROM properties (target population, domains, recall period, development language), PROM development and pilot studies, content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility), and remaining measurement properties (structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, construct validity, and responsiveness). Quality of evidence was assigned for each measurement property of included PROMs. An overall recommendation level was assigned based on content validity and quality of the evidence of measurement properties. We identified 54 acne PROM development or validation studies for 10 acne-specific PROMs, 6 dermatology-specific PROMs, and 5 generic PROMs. Few PROMs had studies for responsiveness. The only acne-specific PROMs with sufficient evidence for content validity were the CompAQ and Acne-Q. Based on available evidence, the Acne-Q and CompAQ can be recommended for use in acne clinical studies. Two PROMs can currently be recommended for use in acne clinical studies: the Acne-Q and CompAQ. Evidence on content validity and other measurement properties were lacking for all PROMs; further research investigating the quality of remaining acne-specific, dermatology-specific, and generic HRQoL PROMs is required to recommend their use.

Patient-Reported Questionnaires to Identify Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review.

Background: This systematic review aims to summarise available patient-reported questionnaires to detect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that can be utilised by healthcare professionals in clinical practice and to summarise the psychometric properties (validity, reliability, and responsiveness) of the questionnaires. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Pubmed, Embase, and Emcare databases to screen for articles published between January 2000 and July 2020. Data items regarding validity, reliability, and responsiveness were extracted independently by two authors. The methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) checklist. Results: A total of 1563 unique article titles were identified after removing duplicates. Following shortlisting of relevant articles, 19 patient-reported ADR questionnaires were identified. Questionnaires most commonly focused on mental health medications (42.1%, n = 8), followed by general questionnaires applicable to any medication (21.1%, n = 4). Many questionnaires did not report assessing the validity and reliability of the measurement tool. For example, only 11 questionnaires (58%) mentioned assessing content validity, in addition to criterion or construct testing. Conclusion: This systematic review summarised the available patient-reported questionnaires that can be used in research and clinical practice to identify ADRs. Results of this systematic review highlight the need for more robust validity and reliability testing when developing patient-reported ADR questionnaires.

Absolute Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Hand-Held Dynamometry in Shoulder Rotator Strength Assessment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of this study is to establish the absolute reliability between hand-held dynamometers (HHDs) and concurrent validity between HHDs and isokinetic dynamometers (IDs) in shoulder rotator strength assessment. The Medline, CINAHL, and Central databases were searched for relevant studies up to July 2020. Absolute reliability was determined by test–retest studies presenting standard error of measurement (SEM%) and/or minimal detectable change (MDC%) expressed as percentage of the mean. Studies considering intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) between IDs and HHDs were considered for concurrent validity. The risk of bias and the methodological quality were evaluated according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Shoulder internal rotator strength assessment MDC% was 0.78%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.21 to 3.66, while shoulder external rotators MDC% was 3.29%, CI −2.69 to 9.27. ICC between devices was 0.94, CI (0.91 to 0.96) for shoulder internal rotators and 0.92, IC (0.88 to 0.97) for shoulder external rotators. Very high correlation was found for shoulder rotator torque assessment between HHDs and IDs. The COSMIN checklist classified the selected studies as adequate and inadequate.

Measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals: A systematic review protocol using the COSMIN checklist.

Society has been increasingly concerned about the impact of pain on farm animal welfare. This systematic review aims to provide evidence relating to the measurement properties (i.e. reliability, validity, and sensitivity) of pain scoring instruments used for pain assessment in farm animals. A literature search will be performed using five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CAB abstracts and Biological Abstracts) and search terms related to pain, pain scales and different species of farm animals. Eligibility criteria will include full-text studies on the development and/or validation of acute and chronic pain scoring instruments for farm animals including bovine (beef and dairy), ovine, caprine, camel, swine and poultry. Exclusion criteria will include studies that report the use of pain scales for the validation of another instrument, or those reporting ethograms/list of behaviors potentially indicating pain without a scoring system. Study titles and their abstracts will be screened for eligibility by one investigator. Full-text articles will be independently reviewed for eligibility and evaluated by two investigators. Relevant information will be recorded and evaluated systematically according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist using an adapted data collection sheet. The following measurement properties and characteristics of the instruments will be assessed: content validity (internal consistency, structural and cross-cultural validity), reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness, interpretability and feasibility. Following the assessment of methodological quality and quality of the findings, evidence for each measurement property will be summarized into high, moderate, low or very low. This systematic review will provide further insights into the evidence-based measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals. It may identify possible gaps of knowledge with these tools as a potential target for future studies in farm animals with a positive impact on animal welfare.

Athlete-Reported Outcome Measures for Monitoring Training Responses: A Systematic Review of Risk of Bias and Measurement Property Quality According to the COSMIN Guidelines.

Athlete-reported outcome measures (AROMs) are frequently used in research and practice but no studies have examined their psychometric properties. Part 1-identify the most commonly used AROMs in sport for monitoring training responses; part 2-assess risk of bias, measurement properties, and level of evidence, based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Methodological quality of the studies, quality of measurement properties, and level of evidence were determined using the COSMIN checklist and criteria. Part 1-from 9446 articles screened for title and abstract, 310 out of 334 full texts were included; 53.9% of the AROMs contained multiple items, while 46.1% contained single items. Part 2-from 1895 articles screened for title and abstract, 71 were selected. Most measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs were adequate, but content validity and measurement error were inadequate. With the exclusion of 2 studies examining reliability and responsiveness, no validity studies were found for single items. The measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs derived from psychometrics were acceptable (with the exclusion of content validity and measurement error). The single-item AROMs most frequently used in sport science have not been validated. Additionally, nonvalidated modified versions of the originally nonvalidated items are common. Until proper validation studies are completed, all conclusions based on these AROMs are questionable. Established reference methods, such as those of clinimetrics, should be used to develop and assess the validity of AROMs.

Developing consensus on core outcome domains and measurement instruments for assessing effectiveness in perioperative pain management after sternotomy, breast cancer surgery, total knee arthroplasty, and surgery related to endometriosis

IntroductionEvidence synthesis of clinical trials requires consistent outcome assessment. For pain management after surgery, inconsistency of effectiveness assessment is still observed. A subproject of IMI-PainCare (Innovative Medicine Initiatives, www.imi-paincare.eu) aims for identifying core outcome domains and measurement instruments for postoperative pain in four surgical fields (sternotomy, breast cancer surgery, total knee arthroplasty, and surgery related to endometriosis) in order to harmonize outcome assessment for perioperative pain management.MethodsA multifaceted process will be performed according to existing guidelines (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)). In a first step, outcome domains will be identified via systematic literature review and consented on during a 1-day consensus meeting by 10 stakeholder groups, including patient representatives, forming an IMI PROMPT consensus panel. In a second step, outcome measurement instruments regarding the beforehand consented core outcome domains and their psychometric properties will be searched for via systematic literature review and approved by COSMIN checklist for study quality and scale quality separately. In a three-step online survey, the IMI PROMPT consensus panel will vote for most suitable measurement instruments. The process is planned to be conducted between 11/2017 (systematic literature review on common outcome domains) and 3/2022 (final voting on core outcome measurement).

Shared Decision-Making Measures: A Systematic Review.

This review used the recent COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) rating system, which gives the reader the ability to find appropriate instruments in a simple way. Shared decision-making (SDM) is part of health professionals', nurses', and patients' interaction about fundamental and special nursing care issues. The objective of this study was to critically appraise instruments that measure SDM in health care-related decisions according to the COSMIN criteria. This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. A thorough search identified SMD measures via PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EBSCO Host, Ovid journals, SAGE journals, and Google Scholar search engine through November 2018 and updated on March 24, 2019. A rating system with "very good," "adequate," "doubtful," or "inadequate" for COSMIN was used. The 17 instruments reported in this review are varied in the measured perspectives; observer-based viewpoint, patient questionnaires, provider questionnaires, and physician questionnaires, or even mixed perspectives. Only one instrument (OPTION 12 Scale) received an excellent rating across all 5 COSMIN validity rating sections in content, structural, and criterion validity. Most of the instruments scored poorly on the COSMIN checklist. Despite the vast number of instruments measuring SDM, researchers must undertake critical appraisal before selecting an acceptable instrument that meets the specific research goal, as well as the quality requirements.

Are there reliable and valid measures of anxiety for people with psychosis? A systematic review of psychometric properties.

Current models of psychosis posit a developmental and maintaining role for anxiety, supported by robust empirical evidence. Given the central role for anxiety in psychosis, valid and reliable assessment is necessary. This systematic review is the first to critically appraise measures of anxiety applied to psychosis samples. Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for studies evaluating psychometric properties of instruments measuring anxiety in samples with non-affective psychosis diagnoses. Psychometric properties were extracted and rated according to established criteria. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of studies. Of 4,344 records identified, 11 studies were identified as eligible for inclusion, by two independent raters with high reliability. Reported psychometric properties for 17 different instruments ranged from unacceptable to excellent. The Scale of Anxiety Evaluation in Schizophrenia was assessed most extensively and demonstrated consistently good psychometric properties. The Beck Anxiety Index, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, DSM-based Generalised Anxiety Disorder Symptoms Severity Scale, Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory, Psychological Stress Index, Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire, and Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale demonstrated adequate reliability and/or validity on the limited properties reported. Methodological quality was largely poor according to the requirements of the COSMIN checklist. The instruments listed are recommended as at least adequate for the assessment of anxiety in psychosis on the basis of these preliminary data. Further validation of existing instruments designed to measure anxiety in people with psychosis is strongly recommended. Anxiety has a developmental and maintaining role in psychosis; therefore, we should routinely screen for symptoms of anxiety when working with people with psychosis spectrum disorders. Studies included in this review reported reliable and valid measures of anxiety for people with psychosis; however, the methodological quality of most studies was poor. We recommend the BAI, DASS, or SAES for general screening, and the DGSS, LSAS, OCI, PSI, PTQ, and Y-BOCS to assess symptoms associated with specific anxiety disorders and anxiety-related processes.

Evaluation of psychometric properties of scales measuring student academic satisfaction: A Systematic review.

BACKGROUND:Student satisfaction has an impact on student motivation, recruitment of new students, and retention of existing students. Hence, it is important for researchers and academic institutes to assess student academic satisfaction by valid and reliable scales. The aim of this study was to rigorously assess methodological quality and psychometric properties of scales measuring student academic satisfaction.METHODS:In this systematic review, databases including Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, and two Persian databases were searched using relevant keywords such as academic satisfaction, student satisfaction, university satisfaction, campus satisfaction, academic life experience, validation, and psychometric and factor analysis from 1970 to December 2018. Considering eligibility criteria, studies were selected after titles and abstracts screening. The methodological quality assessment was performed by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and the Terwee quality criteria.RESULTS:Of 814 retrieved articles, 13 studies were included in the study. Based on the COSMIN checklist, structural validity (84%), content validity (53%), and hypothesis testing (53%) were the most reported properties. One study reported cross-cultural validity, one for criterion validity, and none reported measurement error.CONCLUSION:The results of our study showed that in spite of ≥48 years of development in student satisfaction scales; however, each scale has at least one “poor” psychometric property based on the COSMIN checklist. Quality appraisal of scales is necessary after developing and performing psychometric process.