| Abstract: |
This review examined the state of psychometric validation in the health-related work outcome literature. PubMed, PubMed Central, CINAHL, Embase (plus Embase Classic), and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2016. From the 22,676 retrieved abstracts, 597 outcome measures were identified. Inclusion was based on content analysis. After the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 93 outcome measures remained for further analysis. A follow-up search using the same sources, and time period, with the name of the outcome measures and the terms psychometric, reliability, validity, and responsiveness, identified 263 unique classical test theory psychometric property datasets for the 93 tools. An assessment criterion for psychometric properties was applied to each article, and where consensus was not achieved, the rating delivered by most of the assessors was reported. Of the articles reported, 18 reporting psychometric data were not accessible and therefore could not be assessed. There were 39 that scored <20 percent of the maximum achievable score, 106 scored between 20 and 40 percent, 82 scored between 40 and 60 percent, 15 scored between 60 and 80 percent, and only 1 scored >80 percent. The 3 outcome measures associated with the highest scoring datasets were the Sheehan Disability Scale, the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the assessment of the Subjective Handicap of Epilepsy. Finally, only 2 psychometric validation datasets reported the complete set of baseline psychometric properties. This systematic review highlights the current limitations of the health-related work outcome measure literature, including the limited number of robust tools available. |
| Plain Language Summary: |
Plain Language Title
Assessing the quality of tools to measure health-related work outcomes: A systematic planned out, orderly, regular review
Review go over, check Question
What tools are available on hand, at hand, ready, nearby, handy, ready to assess review, sum up, evaluate, to determine figure out, decide, find out, test value, find health-related work outcomes? What is the quality of these tools?
Background
Vocational rehabilitation programs can support individuals with a variety of health conditions to overcome barriers to employment. The tools used to assess review, sum up, evaluate, to determine figure out, decide, find out, test value, find the effectiveness of these programs are called health-related work outcome measures. These measures often try to capture whether a person is working, how well they are working, and how many hours they are fully working. There are many potential tools to measure health-related work outcomes, and it is not clear which tools are the best. The review go over, check aims to assess review, sum up, evaluate, to determine figure out, decide, find out, test value, find the quality of these tools using validated quality criteria. The goal is to allow the vocational rehabilitation community to select the best measure to use for a particular service.
Search Date
The review go over, check includes studies published before January 2016.
Study Characteristics
The review go over, check included 93 health-related work outcome measures, as well as two outliers that were discussed separately. The review go over, check excludes work-environment measures, which usually measure a person's capacity size, amount something holds, ability, space, number open to work. The review go over, check also excludes tools that do not specifically reference "work."
NIDILRR Affiliation
None
Key Results
The review go over, check scores each study according to nine domains in the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) system. The COSMIN system allows the authors to systematically assess review, sum up, evaluate, to determine figure out, decide, find out, test value, find the quality of the evidence in support of each tool. Thirty-nine studies had very low scores (under 20% of the maximum the largest possible, the most possible score), 106 had low scores (20% to 40%), 82 had scores toward the middle (40% to 60%), 15 had high scores (60% to 80%), and only one had a very high score (above 80%). The three outcome measures associated with the highest scoring datasets were the Sheehan Disability Scale, the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and the assessment of the Subjective Handicap of Epilepsy.
Use of Statistics
The review go over, check does not report detailed statistical analysis.
Quality of Evidence
The aim of the review go over, check is to assess review, sum up, evaluate, to determine figure out, decide, find out, test value, find the quality of the tools used to measure health-related work outcomes. The quality of the evidence is thus discussed under Key Results. The main limitation of the study is that the authors were not able to retrieve get, bring back, get back data on every tool identified in the literature review. go over, check However, the decision to include studies that did not have accessible available, on hand, understandable, usable (handicapped) data adds context to the review. go over, check
|
