Yates Shona L, Morley Stephen, Eccleston Christopher, de C Williams Amanda C
Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, 15 Hyde Terrace, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK Pain Management Unit, University of Bath, Bath, UK Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Pain. 2005 Oct;117(3):314-325. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.018.
This paper reports the development of a scale for assessing the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials for psychological treatments. The Delphi method was used in which a panel of 15-12 experts generated statements relating to treatment and design components of trials. After three rounds, statements with high consensus agreement were reviewed by a second expert panel and rewritten as a scale. Evidence to support the reliability and validity of the scale is reported. Three expert and five novice raters assessed sets of 31 and 25 published trials to establish scale reliability (ICC ranges from 0.91 to 0.41 for experts and novices, respectively) and item reliability (Kappa and inter-rater agreement). The total scale score discriminated between trials globally judged as good and poor by experts, and trial quality was shown to be a function of year of publication. Uses for the scale are suggested.
本文报告了一种用于评估心理治疗随机对照试验报告质量的量表的开发情况。采用了德尔菲法，由一个15至12名专家组成的小组生成与试验的治疗和设计组成部分相关的陈述。经过三轮后，具有高度共识的陈述由第二个专家小组进行审查，并改写为一个量表。报告了支持该量表信度和效度的证据。三名专家和五名新手评分者对31篇和25篇已发表的试验进行评估，以确定量表的信度（专家和新手的组内相关系数分别为0.91至0.41）和项目信度（卡方值和评分者间一致性）。量表总分能够区分专家总体判断为好和差的试验，并且试验质量被证明是出版年份的函数。文中还提出了该量表的用途。
