议定书:社区和机构环境中测量虐待和忽视老年人的仪器的心理测量特性:系统综述。

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Fadzilah Hanum Mohd Mydin, Christopher Mikton, Wan Yuen Choo, Ranita Hisham Shanmugam, Aja Murray, Yongjie Yon, Raudah Mohd Yunus, Noran Naqiah Hairi, Farizah Mohd Hairi, Marie Beaulieu, Amanda Phelan
{"title":"议定书:社区和机构环境中测量虐待和忽视老年人的仪器的心理测量特性:系统综述。","authors":"Fadzilah Hanum Mohd Mydin,&nbsp;Christopher Mikton,&nbsp;Wan Yuen Choo,&nbsp;Ranita Hisham Shanmugam,&nbsp;Aja Murray,&nbsp;Yongjie Yon,&nbsp;Raudah Mohd Yunus,&nbsp;Noran Naqiah Hairi,&nbsp;Farizah Mohd Hairi,&nbsp;Marie Beaulieu,&nbsp;Amanda Phelan","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Searches will be conducted in the following online databases: Ageline, ASSIA, CINAHL, CNKI, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LILACS, Proquest Dissertation &amp; 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>All 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).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>Screening 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1342","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROTOCOL: Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring elder abuse and neglect in community and institutional settings: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Fadzilah Hanum Mohd Mydin,&nbsp;Christopher Mikton,&nbsp;Wan Yuen Choo,&nbsp;Ranita Hisham Shanmugam,&nbsp;Aja Murray,&nbsp;Yongjie Yon,&nbsp;Raudah Mohd Yunus,&nbsp;Noran Naqiah Hairi,&nbsp;Farizah Mohd Hairi,&nbsp;Marie Beaulieu,&nbsp;Amanda Phelan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cl2.1342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>The 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Searches will be conducted in the following online databases: Ageline, ASSIA, CINAHL, CNKI, EMBASE, Google Scholar, LILACS, Proquest Dissertation &amp; 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\\n \\n <p>All 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).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\\n \\n <p>Screening 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.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1342\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1342\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:老年人虐待测量仪器的心理测量特性尚未得到很好的研究。虐待老年人测量工具的心理测量特性较差,可能导致虐待老年人流行率估计值不一致,以及国家、区域和全球层面对问题严重程度的不确定性。目的:本综述将利用结果测量质量的COSMIN分类法来确定和审查用于测量老年人虐待的工具,评估该工具的测量特性,并确定该工具测量的老年人虐待和虐待亚型的定义。搜索方法:将在以下在线数据库中进行搜索:Ageline、ASSIA、CINAHL、CNKI、EMBASE、Google Scholar、LILACS、Proquest Dissertation&Theses Global、PsycINFO、PubMed、SciELO、Scopus、社会学摘要和世界卫生组织医学索引。相关研究也将通过检索OpenAIRE、BASE、OISter和Age Concern NZ等多个资源中的灰色文献来确定。通过检索相关综述的参考文献来进行潜在研究。我们将联系进行过类似工作或目前正在进行研究的专家。如果任何重要数据丢失、不完整或不清楚,我们也会向相关作者发出询问。选择标准:所有发表在同行评审期刊或灰色文献上的定量、定性(涉及面部和内容有效性)和混合方法实证研究都将纳入本综述。如果研究是(1)评估一种或多种心理测量特性的初级研究,则将包括这些研究;(2) 包含有关工具开发的信息,或(3)执行旨在衡量社区或机构环境中虐待老年人行为的工具的内容有效性。研究应至少描述一种心理测量特性,如可靠性、有效性和反应性。研究参与者代表感兴趣的人群,包括社区或机构环境中60岁或以上的男性和女性(即养老院、长期护理机构、辅助生活、住宿护理机构和住宿设施)。数据收集和分析:标题、摘要、,所选研究的全文将由两名评审员根据预设的纳入标准进行评估。两名评审员将使用COSMIN偏倚风险检查表评估每项研究的质量评估,并根据良好测量特性的更新标准评估仪器的每项心理测量特性的总体证据质量。两位评审员之间的任何争议将通过与第三位评审员讨论或达成一致意见来解决。测量仪器的整体质量将采用改进的GRADE方法进行分级。数据提取将使用根据COSMIN结果测量仪器系统评审指南改编的数据提取表格进行。信息包括所包含工具的特征(名称、改编、使用的语言、翻译和原产国)、受试人群的特征、COSMIN标准中列出的心理测量特性,包括工具开发的细节、内容有效性、结构有效性、内部一致性、跨文化有效性/测量不变性,可靠性、测量误差、标准有效性、结构有效性的假设检验、响应性和互操作性。我们将进行荟萃分析,汇集心理测量特性参数(如可能)或进行定性总结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
PROTOCOL: Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring elder abuse and neglect in community and institutional settings: A systematic review

Background

The 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.

Objectives

The 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 Methods

Searches 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 Criteria

All 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 Analysis

Screening 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.

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
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信