Instruments Assessing Self-Efficacy in Rheumatic Diseases
Electronic searches were used to retrieve articles that included the development and/or evaluation of an instrument designed to measure SE in patients with rheumatic diseases. Search terms included all rheumatic diseases AND SE/self-concept AND the terms relevant to measurement, including instrument, measure, reliability, validity and questionnaire. Searches were limited to articles in English or the Scandinavian languages. The databases included AMED, British Nursing Index, Cinahl, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO and Svemed+ for the years 1989, when the arthritis SE scales (ASES) were first published, to December 2011. Searches were then conducted using the names of identified instruments in PubMed.
Three researchers (A.G., I.L., G.S.) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of a random selection of 50 records against the inclusion critieria of the development and/or evaluation of measurement properties of SE instruments in patients with rheumatic diseases. This included translations and cross-cultural evaluations of existing instruments. The reviewers then discussed their findings to ensure that they were applying the criteria correctly before assessing the remainder. One reviewer (A.G.) assessed all and the other two each assessed half of the records. The findings were pooled, consensus achieved and articles meeting the inclusion criteria retrieved. Other potentially relevant articles were retrieved from reference lists.
Data extraction followed the COSMIN checklist for PRO instrument measurement properties. Two reviewers (A.G., G.S.) independently extracted the information using a data extraction sheet after comparing their results for two articles to assess consistency.
The COSMIN checklist includes 10 boxes relating to the methodological quality of the studies describing the development and evaluation of PROs based on an international Delphi study. The boxes comprise 5 to 18 items relating to internal consistency, reliability (relative measures including test–retest), measurement error, content validity (including face validity), structural validity (factor analysis), hypothesis testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity, responsiveness and interpretability. Two additional boxes have items relating to item response theory and generalizability of results. It is also possible to calculate a methodological quality score where each item is rated on a four-point scale of poor, fair, good and excellent. The overall score per box is determined by the item with the lowest score, hence a poor score on any item represents a fatal flaw.
COSMIN does not take account of the findings of the study, thus, as recommended by the COSMIN Group, an overall quality rating that is designed to evaluate and compare the quality of instruments was also included, which has been used in previous systematic reviews. The ratings of positive (+), indeterminate (?), negative (−) or no information available relate to floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency, interpretability, qualitative and quantitative aspects of validity, reproducibility and responsiveness.
Methods
Search Strategy
Electronic searches were used to retrieve articles that included the development and/or evaluation of an instrument designed to measure SE in patients with rheumatic diseases. Search terms included all rheumatic diseases AND SE/self-concept AND the terms relevant to measurement, including instrument, measure, reliability, validity and questionnaire. Searches were limited to articles in English or the Scandinavian languages. The databases included AMED, British Nursing Index, Cinahl, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO and Svemed+ for the years 1989, when the arthritis SE scales (ASES) were first published, to December 2011. Searches were then conducted using the names of identified instruments in PubMed.
Three researchers (A.G., I.L., G.S.) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of a random selection of 50 records against the inclusion critieria of the development and/or evaluation of measurement properties of SE instruments in patients with rheumatic diseases. This included translations and cross-cultural evaluations of existing instruments. The reviewers then discussed their findings to ensure that they were applying the criteria correctly before assessing the remainder. One reviewer (A.G.) assessed all and the other two each assessed half of the records. The findings were pooled, consensus achieved and articles meeting the inclusion criteria retrieved. Other potentially relevant articles were retrieved from reference lists.
Data Extraction
Data extraction followed the COSMIN checklist for PRO instrument measurement properties. Two reviewers (A.G., G.S.) independently extracted the information using a data extraction sheet after comparing their results for two articles to assess consistency.
The COSMIN checklist includes 10 boxes relating to the methodological quality of the studies describing the development and evaluation of PROs based on an international Delphi study. The boxes comprise 5 to 18 items relating to internal consistency, reliability (relative measures including test–retest), measurement error, content validity (including face validity), structural validity (factor analysis), hypothesis testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity, responsiveness and interpretability. Two additional boxes have items relating to item response theory and generalizability of results. It is also possible to calculate a methodological quality score where each item is rated on a four-point scale of poor, fair, good and excellent. The overall score per box is determined by the item with the lowest score, hence a poor score on any item represents a fatal flaw.
COSMIN does not take account of the findings of the study, thus, as recommended by the COSMIN Group, an overall quality rating that is designed to evaluate and compare the quality of instruments was also included, which has been used in previous systematic reviews. The ratings of positive (+), indeterminate (?), negative (−) or no information available relate to floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency, interpretability, qualitative and quantitative aspects of validity, reproducibility and responsiveness.
SHARE
