Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies

There is no clear candidate tool for assessing the methodological quality of ex post facto studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses yet. Our purpose is to thoroughly analyze the psychometric properties of the three most comprehensive assessment tools of this kind published up to 2010. We sele...

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:136801
Acceso en línea:https://ddd.uab.cat/record/136801
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Ex post facto studies
Quality assessment tools
Systematic reviews
Meta-analyses
Instrumental study
id ES_c7ebd8c0d6aceecb1d707b9cc3f5c44e
oai_identifier_str oai:ddd.uab.cat:136801
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studiesJarde, AlexanderLosilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275Ex post facto studiesQuality assessment toolsSystematic reviewsMeta-analysesInstrumental studyThere is no clear candidate tool for assessing the methodological quality of ex post facto studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses yet. Our purpose is to thoroughly analyze the psychometric properties of the three most comprehensive assessment tools of this kind published up to 2010. We selected these tools from a previous systematic review, and we applied each one to assess the quality of 10 prospective studies, 10 retrospective studies with quasi-control group, and 10 cross-sectional studies. Inter-rater reliability for the first two aforementioned research designs is moderate only for one of the selected tools, and moderate to high for all of them for cross-sectional studies. Agreement between tools is low in general, although the inferred aspects show that the tools have a relative good conceptual overlapping in most of the domains. According to these results we recommend two tools for assessing cross-sectional studies, but we consider that the tools applicable to prospective studies or retrospective studies with quasi-control group require further testing. The 30 concrete aspects that we have inferred from the items of the three analyzed tools can be used as starting point to develop a new tool of this kind. 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/136801reponame: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:1368012026-06-06T12:50:31Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies
title Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies
spellingShingle Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies
Jarde, Alexander
Ex post facto studies
Quality assessment tools
Systematic reviews
Meta-analyses
Instrumental study
title_short Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies
title_full Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies
title_fullStr Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies
title_full_unstemmed Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies
title_sort Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto 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 Ex post facto studies
Quality assessment tools
Systematic reviews
Meta-analyses
Instrumental study
topic Ex post facto studies
Quality assessment tools
Systematic reviews
Meta-analyses
Instrumental study
description There is no clear candidate tool for assessing the methodological quality of ex post facto studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses yet. Our purpose is to thoroughly analyze the psychometric properties of the three most comprehensive assessment tools of this kind published up to 2010. We selected these tools from a previous systematic review, and we applied each one to assess the quality of 10 prospective studies, 10 retrospective studies with quasi-control group, and 10 cross-sectional studies. Inter-rater reliability for the first two aforementioned research designs is moderate only for one of the selected tools, and moderate to high for all of them for cross-sectional studies. Agreement between tools is low in general, although the inferred aspects show that the tools have a relative good conceptual overlapping in most of the domains. According to these results we recommend two tools for assessing cross-sectional studies, but we consider that the tools applicable to prospective studies or retrospective studies with quasi-control group require further testing. The 30 concrete aspects that we have inferred from the items of the three analyzed tools can be used as starting point to develop a new tool of this kind.
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/136801
url https://ddd.uab.cat/record/136801
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_ 1869419220206354432
score 15.301603

Similares en LA Referencia