Review Of Measurement Instruments Research Articles

O Rivermead Mobility Index é o instrumento de medida mais completo para avaliar a mobilidade funcional no AVC: scoping review e revisão sistemática

Introduction: Stroke is the leading cause of long-term disability in the global population. The structural and functional changes resulting from the condition contribute to the reduction of functional mobility (FM), making it essential to evaluate it with appropriate and grounded measurement instruments (MI), enabling a more objective and rigorous clinical practice. Objectives: To investigate which measurement instrument(s) is/are the most comprehensive, from the point of view of the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) categories covered, that, according to the literature, assess(es) FM in the adult individual with sequelae of stroke, and to review in the literature the psychometric properties of this/these instrument(s). Material and Methods: Two literature searches were conducted on the PubMed, EBSCO, CENTRAL, PEDro, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Wiley Online Library databases. The study was divided into two main parts, namely the elaboration of a Scoping Review of MI that assess FM and a Systematic Review of the psychometric properties of MI with more correspondences with the ICF. Results: In the Scoping Review, 120 studies were included, and the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) was the MI that presented the most correspondences with the ICF categories included in the definition of FM. In the Systematic Review, of the 11 studies found, good results were found in the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of the RMI. Conclusions: The RMI appears to be the most comprehensive MI in correspondence with the ICF categories included in the definition of FM. The use of RMI is recommended as an FM MI in stroke patients, due to its good psychometric properties.

Systematic Reviews to Strengthen Evidence-based Nursing Practice

Systematic reviews are essential to developing evidence-based nursing practice. The JBI, formerly known as the Joanna Briggs Institute, has contributed significantly to research through technical training on reviews. Cochrane Living Systematic Reviews and Systematic Reviews of Measurement Instruments have been approaches recently used by the scientific community. The purpose of Living Systematic Reviews is to continuously update priority issues, while Systematic Reviews of Measurement Instruments condense evidence on the validity of measurement instruments. This article overviews the JBI Systematic Review approaches and provides critical information about Cochrane Living Systematic Reviews and Systematic Reviews of Measurement Instruments. The use of these new approaches is necessary to maintain the evidence-based nursing practice and advance nursing knowledge.

An Integrative Review of Measurement Instruments Used to Assess the Stigma That Affects People Who Use Drugs

This article aims to review how existing instruments to measure stigma affecting people who use drugs have been developed, which domains of stigma are measured, as well as metrics used to validate these instruments. Using the Whittemore and Knafl’s process for conducting an integrative review, six studies published between January 2002 and April 2019 were systematically analyzed. Overall, all the studies included had good methodological qualities. The results showed that the instruments measured one or more domain of stigma. However, most of these studies use already pre-validated instrument to measure stigma in mental health and adapt to fit the people who use drugs context. Based on the findings we therefore recommend that more studies exploring the experience of people who use drugs regarding stigma, and the perceptions of service provides rendering care to people who use drugs should be undertaken to develop relevant and context-specific stigma instruments.

Review of measurement instruments in research ethics in the biomedical sciences, 2008−2012

There is an urgent need in biomedical science to understand whether regulations are being met, prerequisite to goals of subject protection and integrity in research practice. This article presents an update of a 2006 summary of measurement instruments in research ethics with psychometric information in the years 2008−2012. A review of 25 instruments identified seven used in the time period 2008−2012 and which had accumulated at least one study of its psychometric qualities beyond its developmental phase. Many of these instruments had been accumulating psychometric information over more than a decade. Two additional but still underdeveloped instruments addressing important bioethical issues − coercion and therapeutic misconception − are included because they address important issues in research ethics. Bioethicists use a wide range of methods for knowledge development and verification; each method should meet stringent standards of quality. Measurement instruments that meet these standards have the potential to greatly ease the work of institutional review boards and other regulatory bodies as well as to enhance empirical work on human research ethics.

A comparative review of measurement instruments to inform and evaluate effectiveness of disability inclusive development

Purpose: A review of existing measurement instruments was conducted to examine their suitability to measure disability prevalence and assess quality of life, protection of disability rights and community participation by people with disabilities, specifically within the context of development programs in low and middle-income countries. Methods: From a search of PubMed and the grey literature, potentially relevant measurement instruments were identified and examined for their content and psychometric properties, where possible. Criteria for inclusion were: based on the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF), used quantitative methods, suitable for population-based studies of disability inclusive development in English and published after 1990. Characteristics of existing instruments were analysed according to components of the ICF and quality of life domains. Results: Ten instruments were identified and reviewed according to the criteria listed above. Each version of instruments was analysed separately. Only three instruments included a component on quality of life. Domains from the ICF that were addressed by some but not all instruments included the environment, technology and communication. Conclusion: The measurement instruments reviewed covered the range of elements required to measure disability-inclusion within development contexts. However no single measurement instrument has the capacity to measure both disability prevalence and changes in quality of life according to contemporary disability paradigms. The review of measurement instruments supports the need for developing an instrument specifically intended to measure disability inclusive practice within development programs.Implications for RehabilitationSurveys and tools are needed to plan disability inclusive development.Existing measurement tools to determine prevalence of disability, wellbeing, rights and access to the community were reviewed.No single validated tool exists for population-based studies, uses quantitative methods and the components of the ICF to measure prevalence of disability, well-being of people with disability and their access to their communities.A measurement tool that reflects the UNCRPD and addresses all components of the ICF is needed to assist in disability inclusive development, especially in low and mid resource countries.

Childhood Adversity: A Review of Measurement Instruments

Measurement instruments are needed to stimulate research on the long-term outcomes of childhood adversity. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to locate, describe, and assess instruments to measure retrospective perceptions of childhood adversity. An electronic search of instruments was conducted using a combination of keywords that included child maltreatment, child trauma, and childhood stressful events. Nine instruments were located and described according to format, definition of childhood adversity as measured by the instrument, characteristics of the sample used in development and testing, reliability and validity evidence, and feasibility for use. Six out of the nine instruments were suitable for investigators who require a comprehensive measure of childhood adversity. Corroboration with independent sources and use of randomized samples are needed to improve upon reports of validity.

Safety Climate in Healthcare: A Review of Measurement Instruments

A deficient safety culture has been implicated in industrial accidents. More recently, patient safety problems in hospital care have revealed a weak safety culture as a causal factor. As in the other industrial sectors, the level of safety for hospital patients and staff is likely to be determined largely by the hospital's safety culture. Measuring safety culture is a risk management technique widely used in high-reliability industries to identify safety problems before they become realised as accidents and near misses. The most common approach to measuring safety culture is to conduct a safety climate survey of the workforce. A safety climate survey typically assesses the workforce's attitudes and perceptions about work pressure, communication, reporting and safety systems, and supervision and management commitment to safety. Thus, safety climate surveys provide a range of leading indicators about an organisation's underlying safety culture, which need to be understood when designing and implementing safety interventions such as critical incident reporting systems. This paper reviews the construct validity of 13 instruments that have been used to assess safety climate in healthcare. An explanatory model linking safety climate and safety behaviours is proposed in order to develop more valid measures of safety climate in healthcare.