■在测量老年人虐待(AOP)的仪器中检查心理测量特性是一个至关重要的研究领域,不幸的是,受到的关注相对较少。AOP测量仪器中不良的心理测量特性可能会导致患病率估计的不一致,给这个问题的严重程度投下了不确定性的阴影,区域,和全球层面。
■本评论严格采用了基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)关于结果测量质量的指南。它旨在识别和审查用于测量AOP的仪器,评估仪器的测量特性,并确定这些工具测量的AOP和滥用亚型的定义,确保研究结果的信度和效度。
■截至2023年5月,在各种在线数据库中进行了全面搜索,包括通过EBSCOhost的AgeLine,ASSIA通过ProQuest,CINAHL通过EBSCOhost,EMBASE,LILACS,ProQuest学位论文与论文全球,PsycINFO通过EBSCOhost,PubMed,SciELO,Scopus,通过ProQuest的社会学抽象,中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI),谷歌学者和世卫组织全球指数医学。此外,相关研究是通过从坎贝尔合作组织等资源中彻底搜索灰色文献来确定的,OpenAIRE,和嫁接。
■所有定量,定性(处理面部和内容有效性),这篇综述包括发表在同行评审期刊或灰色文献上的混合方法实证研究。纳入的研究是主要研究,(1)评估一种或多种心理测量特性,(2)包含有关仪器开发的信息,或(3)检查了旨在衡量社区或机构环境中AOP的工具的内容有效性。选定的研究描述了至少一个心理测量属性:可靠性,有效性,和响应性。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。
■两名评审员评估了选定研究的标题筛选,摘要,和基于预设选择标准的全文。两名审稿人使用COSMIN偏差风险核对表评估了每项研究的质量,并根据最新的COSMIN良好测量特性标准评估了仪器每个心理测量特性的总体证据质量。分歧通过协商一致讨论或在第三审稿人的协助下得到解决。使用改进的GRADE方法对测量仪器的整体质量进行分级。使用改编自COSMIN《结果测量仪器系统评价指南》的数据提取表格进行数据提取。提取的数据包括有关所包含仪器特性的信息(名称,适应,使用的语言,翻译和原产国),被测试人群的特征,仪器开发,COSMIN标准中列出的心理测量特性,包括内容有效性的细节,结构有效性,内部一致性,跨文化效度/测量不变性,可靠性,测量误差,标准有效性,结构效度的假设检验,响应性、响应性和互操作性。所有数据都经过定性合成和汇总,未进行荟萃分析.
■我们发现了15,200条潜在相关记录,其中382份全文进行了筛选。共纳入114项符合纳入标准的研究。四项研究报告了不止一种仪器。排除研究的主要原因是他们专注于仅用于筛查和诊断目的的仪器。那些在医院环境中进行的,或者那些没有评估心理测量特性的人。87项研究报告了46种原始仪器,29项研究报告了22种原始仪器的修改版本。大多数研究是从老年人(90项研究)的角度在社区环境中进行的(97项研究),在高收入国家进行的(69项研究)。95项研究评估了多种形式的虐待,范围从2到13个不同的分量表;四项研究测量了老年人的总体虐待和忽视,14项研究测量了一种特定类型的滥用。大约四分之一的研究报告了最常用的测量仪器的心理测量特性:HS-EAST(在11项研究中进行了评估),VASS-12项目(在9项研究中),和案例(在9项研究中)。在报告所有领域的工具开发和内容有效性的研究中具有最多证据的工具(相关性,全面性和可理解性)是DEAQ,OAPAM,*RAAL-31项目,*ICNH(挪威)和OAFEM。对于其他心理测量属性,就研究数量而言,证据最多的工具是HS-EAST(9项心理测量特性中有5项研究),案例(9项研究涉及9项心理测量特性中的6项),VASS-12项目(9项研究涉及9项心理测量属性中的5项)和GMS(5项研究涉及9项心理测量属性中的4项)。根据证据的总体评级和质量,在社区和机构环境中用于患病率测量的AOP测量仪器的心理测量特性不足且质量低.
■本综述旨在评估在社区和机构环境中测量AOP的工具的总体评级和证据质量。我们的发现揭示了各种测量仪器,评级和证据质量主要表明不足和低质量。总之,AOP测量仪器的心理测量学特性尚未得到全面研究,现有工具缺乏足够的证据来支持其有效性和可靠性。
UNASSIGNED: The examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) is a crucial area of study that has, unfortunately, received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments can significantly contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.
UNASSIGNED: This review rigorously employed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures. It was designed to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments\' measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive search was conducted up to May 2023 across various online databases, including AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and WHO Global Index Medicus. Additionally, relevant studies were identified by thoroughly searching the grey literature from resources such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.
UNASSIGNED: All quantitative, qualitative (addressing face and content validity), and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on
instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. The selected studies describe at least one psychometric property: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.
UNASSIGNED: Two reviewers evaluated the screening of the selected studies\' titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the preset selection criteria. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence for each psychometric property of the
instrument against the updated COSMIN criteria of good measurement properties. Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion or with assistance from a third reviewer. The overall quality of the measurement
instrument was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction was performed using data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. The extracted data included information on the characteristics of included instruments (name, adaptation, language used, translation and country of origin), characteristics of the tested population, instrument development, psychometric properties listed in the COSMIN criteria, including details on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and interoperability. All data were synthesised and summarised qualitatively, and no meta-analysis was performed.
UNASSIGNED: We found 15,200 potentially relevant records, of which 382 were screened in full text. A total of 114 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported on more than one
instrument. The primary reasons for excluding studies were their focus on instruments used solely for screening and diagnostic purposes, those conducted in hospital settings, or those without evaluating psychometric properties. Eighty-seven studies reported on 46 original instruments and 29 studies on 22 modified versions of an original instrument. The majority of the studies were conducted in community settings (97 studies) from the perspective of older adults (90 studies) and were conducted in high-income countries (69 studies). Ninety-five studies assessed multiple forms of abuse, ranging from 2 to 13 different subscales; four studies measured overall abuse and neglect among older adults, and 14 studies measured one specific type of abuse. Approximately one-quarter of the included studies reported on the psychometric properties of the most frequently used measurement instruments: HS-EAST (assessed in 11 studies), VASS-12 items (in 9 studies), and CASE (in 9 studies). The instruments with the most evidence available in studies reporting on
instrument development and content validity in all domains (relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility) were the DEAQ, OAPAM, *RAAL-31 items, *ICNH (Norwegian) and OAFEM. For other psychometric properties, instruments with the most evidence available in terms of the number of studies were the HS-EAST (11 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties), CASE (9 studies across 6 of 9 psychometric properties), VASS-12 items (9 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties) and GMS (5 studies across 4 of 9 psychometric properties). Based on the overall rating and quality of evidence, the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments used for prevalence measurement in community and institutional settings were insufficient and of low quality.
UNASSIGNED: This review aimed to assess the overall rating and quality of evidence for instruments measuring AOP in the community and institutional settings. Our findings revealed various measurement instruments, with ratings and evidence quality predominantly indicating insufficiency and low quality. In summary, the psychometric properties of AOP measurement instruments have not been comprehensively investigated, and existing instruments lack sufficient evidence to support their validity and reliability.