Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies

The evaluation of the methodological quality of primary studies in systematic reviews is of great importance in order to guarantee the validity and reliability of their results, but there is no agreement on which tool should be used. Our aim is to analyze the tools proposed so far for the assessment...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Jarde, Alexander, Losilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847, Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2012
País:España
Institución:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Repositorio:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:ddd.uab.cat:132507
Acceso en línea:https://ddd.uab.cat/record/132507
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.6018/analesps.28.2.148911
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Non-experimental studies
Methodological quality
Quality assessment tools
Systematic review
Estudios no experimentales
Calidad metodológica
Instrumentos de medida de la calidad
Revisión sistemática
id ES_8b29618f2cdbaaeab088c9e23091d2bd
oai_identifier_str oai:ddd.uab.cat:132507
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studiesa systematic reviewInstrumentos de evaluación de la calidad metodológica de estudios no experimentalesJarde, AlexanderLosilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275Non-experimental studiesMethodological qualityQuality assessment toolsSystematic reviewEstudios no experimentalesCalidad metodológicaInstrumentos de medida de la calidadRevisión sistemáticaThe evaluation of the methodological quality of primary studies in systematic reviews is of great importance in order to guarantee the validity and reliability of their results, but there is no agreement on which tool should be used. Our aim is to analyze the tools proposed so far for the assessment of cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies in psychology and health sciences. A systematic review was performed using 5 electronic databases and Google®. In order to analyze the tools' content, 6 domains of quality were defined based on reporting guidelines, the established bibliography, and previous similar studies. 74 tools were identified and analyzed. Few reported their reliability (20%) or validity (14%). The most frequently addressed content domains were Data collection (71.6%), Selection (67.6%), Statistics and data analysis (67.6%), and Measurement (58.1%); only 35.1% addressed Representativeness, and 6.8% addressed Funding. Despite the strengths we found scattered among the tools, there is no single obvious choice if we had to make any recommendation. Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies should meet standardized development criteria, but previously it is necessary to reach an agreement on which content domains they should take into accountLa evaluación de la calidad metodológica de los estudios primarios en una revisión sistemática es importante para garantizar la validez y fiabilidad de sus resultados, pero no existe acuerdo sobre qué instrumento debería usarse para hacerlo. Nuestro objetivo es analizar los instrumentos de medida utilizados en psicología y las ciencias de la salud para la valoración de estudios de cohortes, de casos y controles, y transversales. Se realizó una revisión sistemática usando 5 bases de datos y Google®. Para analizar el contenido de los instrumentos se definieron 6 dimensiones de calidad en base a guías de comunicación, bibliografía de referencia y estudios similares. Se identificaron y analizaron 74 instrumentos. Pocos indicaban su fiabilidad (20%) o validez (14%). Las dimensiones consideradas con más frecuencia fueron Obtención de datos (71.6%), Selección (67.6%), Análisis de datos y estadística (67.7%) y Medición (58.1%). Sólo un 35.1% consideraron Representatividad, y un 6.8% considera la Financiación. Pese a los puntos fuertes diseminados en los diferentes instrumentos, no hay ninguno que se pueda recomendar sin reservas. Un instrumento de medida para valorar la calidad metodológica de estudios no experimentales debería seguir un proceso de desarrollo estandarizado, pero previamente es necesario un acuerdo sobre qué dimensiones debería evaluar 22012-01-0120122012-01-01Articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501VoRhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://ddd.uab.cat/record/132507https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.6018/analesps.28.2.148911reponame:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UABinstname:Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaInglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Aquest document està subjecte a una llicència d'ús Creative Commons. Es permet la reproducció total o parcial, la distribució, i la comunicació pública de l'obra, sempre que no sigui amb finalitats comercials, i sempre que es reconegui l'autoria de l'obra original. No es permet la creació d'obres derivades.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:ddd.uab.cat:1325072026-06-06T12:50:31Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
a systematic review
Instrumentos de evaluación de la calidad metodológica de estudios no experimentales
title Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
spellingShingle Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
Jarde, Alexander
Non-experimental studies
Methodological quality
Quality assessment tools
Systematic review
Estudios no experimentales
Calidad metodológica
Instrumentos de medida de la calidad
Revisión sistemática
title_short Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
title_full Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
title_fullStr Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
title_full_unstemmed Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
title_sort Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Jarde, Alexander
Losilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847
Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275
author Jarde, Alexander
author_facet Jarde, Alexander
Losilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847
Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275
author_role author
author2 Losilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847
Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Non-experimental studies
Methodological quality
Quality assessment tools
Systematic review
Estudios no experimentales
Calidad metodológica
Instrumentos de medida de la calidad
Revisión sistemática
topic Non-experimental studies
Methodological quality
Quality assessment tools
Systematic review
Estudios no experimentales
Calidad metodológica
Instrumentos de medida de la calidad
Revisión sistemática
description The evaluation of the methodological quality of primary studies in systematic reviews is of great importance in order to guarantee the validity and reliability of their results, but there is no agreement on which tool should be used. Our aim is to analyze the tools proposed so far for the assessment of cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies in psychology and health sciences. A systematic review was performed using 5 electronic databases and Google®. In order to analyze the tools' content, 6 domains of quality were defined based on reporting guidelines, the established bibliography, and previous similar studies. 74 tools were identified and analyzed. Few reported their reliability (20%) or validity (14%). The most frequently addressed content domains were Data collection (71.6%), Selection (67.6%), Statistics and data analysis (67.6%), and Measurement (58.1%); only 35.1% addressed Representativeness, and 6.8% addressed Funding. Despite the strengths we found scattered among the tools, there is no single obvious choice if we had to make any recommendation. Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies should meet standardized development criteria, but previously it is necessary to reach an agreement on which content domains they should take into account
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2
2012-01-01
2012
2012-01-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv Article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
VoR
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://ddd.uab.cat/record/132507
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.6018/analesps.28.2.148911
url https://ddd.uab.cat/record/132507
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.6018/analesps.28.2.148911
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
instname:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
instname_str Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
reponame_str Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
collection Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869412787738902528
score 15,300724

Similares en LA Referencia