7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measuring Violence Against Children: A COSMIN Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of Child and Adolescent Self-Report Measures

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Research on violence against children (VAC) requires meaningful, valid, and reliable self-report by children. Many instruments have been used globally and decisions to select suitable measures are complex. This review identifies child and adolescent self-report measures that are most likely to yield valid, reliable, and comparable data in this field. A systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD4201706) was conducted using the 2018 Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) criteria. Six electronic databases and gray literature were searched. Manuscripts published in English and describing the development and psychometric qualities of child/adolescent self-report instruments were included. Thirty-nine original instruments and 13 adaptations were identified in 124 studies. The quality of evidence ranged from “very low” to “high” depending on the measure and the psychometric properties assessed. Most measures were not widely used, and some have been applied in many settings despite limited evidence of their psychometric rigor. Few studies assessed content validity, particularly with children. The ACE, CTQ, CTS-PC, CECA, ICAST, and JVQ have the best psychometric properties. An overview of items measuring frequency, onset, duration, perpetrators, and locations is provided as well as an assessment of the practicalities for administration to help researchers select the instrument best suited for their research questions. This comprehensive review shows the strengths and weaknesses of VAC research instruments. Six measures that have sufficient psychometric properties are recommended for use in research, with the caveat that extensive piloting is carried out to ensure sufficient content validity for the local context and population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            A growing body of research identifies the harmful effects that adverse childhood experiences (ACEs; occurring during childhood or adolescence; eg, child maltreatment or exposure to domestic violence) have on health throughout life. Studies have quantified such effects for individual ACEs. However, ACEs frequently co-occur and no synthesis of findings from studies measuring the effect of multiple ACE types has been done.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

              Purpose Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Results A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1–4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5–8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. Conclusions The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Trauma Violence Abuse
                Trauma Violence Abuse
                sptva
                TVA
                Trauma, Violence & Abuse
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1524-8380
                1552-8324
                21 April 2022
                July 2023
                : 24
                : 3
                : 1832-1847
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Social and Political Science, Ringgold 151027, universityUniversity of Edinburgh; , Edinburgh, UK
                [2 ]OPTENTIA, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ringgold 12205, universityNorth-West University; , Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
                [3 ]School of Public Health, Ringgold 98584, universityUniversity of the Witwatersrand; , Johannesburg, South Africa
                [4 ]Moray House School of Education, Ringgold 1649, universityUniversity of Edinburgh; , Edinburgh, UK
                [5 ]Department of Psychiatry, Ringgold 1969, universityUniversity of Oxford; , Oxford, UK
                [6 ]Department of Social Policy and Intervention, universityUniversity of Oxford; , Oxford, UK
                [7 ]Curtin enAble Institute and School of Population Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ringgold 1649, universityCurtin University; , Perth, Australia
                [8 ]Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Ringgold 1969, universityQueensland University of Technology; , Brisbane, Australia
                [9 ]Institute for Community Health Research, universityHue University; , Vietnam
                Author notes
                [*]Franziska Meinck, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, 15a George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LD, UK. Email: fmeinck@ 123456ed.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5234-3799
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3913-3447
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2028-558X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6449-9838
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5420-8606
                Article
                10.1177_15248380221082152
                10.1177/15248380221082152
                10240621
                35446727
                bc1d12aa-d5e6-4bd9-ae3a-04732b264abf
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: National Health and Medical Research Council, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000925;
                Award ID: 1173043
                Funded by: Economic and Social Research Council, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000269;
                Award ID: ES/N017447/1, ES/R501037/1
                Funded by: H2020 European Research Council, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100010663;
                Award ID: 852787
                Funded by: Global Challenges Research Fund, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100016270;
                Award ID: ES/S008101/1
                Funded by: University of Edinburgh's Principal's Career Development Scholarship;
                Funded by: University of Edinburgh's Global Research Scholarship;
                Categories
                Review Manuscripts
                Custom metadata
                ts10

                violence against children,child abuse,child maltreatment,measurement,psychometrics,instrument

                Comments

                Comment on this article