4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Accounting for power imbalances in online public deliberations. A systematic review of asymmetry measures

      , , ,
      Health Policy and Technology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

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

          Propriedades psicométricas na avaliação de instrumentos: avaliação da confiabilidade e da validade

          Resumo Instrumentos de medida desempenham um importante papel na pesquisa, na prática clínica e na avaliação de saúde. Estudos sobre a qualidade desses instrumentos fornecem evidências de como as propriedades de medida foram avaliadas, auxiliando o pesquisador na escolha da melhor ferramenta para utilização. A confiabilidade e a validade são consideradas as principais propriedades de medida de tais instrumentos. Confiabilidade é a capacidade em reproduzir um resultado de forma consistente, no tempo e no espaço. Validade refere-se à propriedade de um instrumento medir exatamente o que se propõe. Neste artigo são apresentados, discutidos e exemplificados os principais critérios e testes estatísticos empregados na avaliação da confiabilidade (estabilidade, consistência interna e equivalência) e validade (conteúdo, critério e construto) de instrumentos. A avaliação das propriedades de medida de instrumentos é útil para subsidiar a seleção de instrumentos válidos e confiáveis, de modo a assegurar a qualidade dos resultados dos estudos.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

            Background The COSMIN checklist is a standardized tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. It contains 9 boxes, each dealing with one measurement property, with 5–18 items per box about design aspects and statistical methods. Our aim was to develop a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist to calculate quality scores per measurement property when using the checklist in systematic reviews of measurement properties. Methods The scoring system was developed based on discussions among experts and testing of the scoring system on 46 articles from a systematic review. Four response options were defined for each COSMIN item (excellent, good, fair, and poor). A quality score per measurement property is obtained by taking the lowest rating of any item in a box (“worst score counts”). Results Specific criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor quality for each COSMIN item are described. In defining the criteria, the “worst score counts” algorithm was taken into consideration. This means that only fatal flaws were defined as poor quality. The scores of the 46 articles show how the scoring system can be used to provide an overview of the methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review of measurement properties. Conclusions Based on experience in testing this scoring system on 46 articles, the COSMIN checklist with the proposed scoring system seems to be a useful tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews of measurement properties.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review.

              Systematic literature reviews identify, select, appraise, and synthesize relevant literature on a particular topic. Typically, these reviews examine primary studies based on similar methods, e.g., experimental trials. In contrast, interest in a new form of review, known as mixed studies review (MSR), which includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, is growing. In MSRs, reviewers appraise studies that use different methods allowing them to obtain in-depth answers to complex research questions. However, appraising the quality of studies with different methods remains challenging. To facilitate systematic MSRs, a pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) has been developed at McGill University (a checklist and a tutorial), which can be used to concurrently appraise the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. The purpose of the present study is to test the reliability and efficiency of a pilot version of the MMAT. The Center for Participatory Research at McGill conducted a systematic MSR on the benefits of Participatory Research (PR). Thirty-two PR evaluation studies were appraised by two independent reviewers using the pilot MMAT. Among these, 11 (34%) involved nurses as researchers or research partners. Appraisal time was measured to assess efficiency. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating a kappa statistic based on dichotomized responses for each criterion. An appraisal score was determined for each study, which allowed the calculation of an overall intra-class correlation. On average, it took 14 min to appraise a study (excluding the initial reading of articles). Agreement between reviewers was moderate to perfect with regards to MMAT criteria, and substantial with respect to the overall quality score of appraised studies. The MMAT is unique, thus the reliability of the pilot MMAT is promising, and encourages further development. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Health Policy and Technology
                Health Policy and Technology
                Elsevier BV
                22118837
                March 2023
                March 2023
                : 12
                : 1
                : 100721
                Article
                10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100721
                d0e6247d-79d6-4145-8f33-a679d50965cb
                © 2023

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article