Dept of Neurobiology, Care Sciences, and Society, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden.
J Phys Act Health. 2012 Jan;9 Suppl 1:S29-36. doi: 10.1123/jpah.9.s1.s29.
The quality of methodological papers assessing physical activity instruments depends upon the rigor of a study's design.
We present a checklist to assess key criteria for instrument validation studies.
A Medline/PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines for evaluating the methodological quality of instrument validation studies. Based upon the literature, a pilot version of a checklist was developed consisting of 21 items with 3 subscales: 1) quality of the reported data (9 items: assess whether the reported information is sufficient to make an unbiased assessment of the findings); 2) external validity of the results (3 items: assess the extent to which the findings are generalizable); 3) internal validity of the study (9 items: assess the rigor of the study design). The checklist was tested for interrater reliability and feasibility with 6 raters.
Raters viewed the checklist as helpful for reviewing studies. They suggested minor wording changes for 8 items to clarify intent. One item was divided into 2 items for a total of 22 items.
Checklists may be useful to assess the quality of studies designed to validate physical activity instruments. Future research should test checklist internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.
评估体力活动仪器的方法学论文的质量取决于研究设计的严谨性。
我们提出了一个检查表，以评估仪器验证研究的关键标准。
通过 Medline/PubMed 搜索，确定了评估仪器验证研究方法学质量的指南。根据文献，开发了一个包含 21 个项目和 3 个子量表的检查表的试点版本：1）报告数据的质量（9 个项目：评估报告信息是否足以对研究结果进行无偏见的评估）；2）结果的外部有效性（3 个项目：评估研究结果的可推广程度）；3）研究的内部有效性（9 个项目：评估研究设计的严谨性）。该检查表已由 6 名评估者进行了评估者间可靠性和可行性测试。
评估者认为检查表有助于审查研究。他们建议对 8 个项目进行细微的措辞更改，以澄清意图。有一个项目被分为两个项目，共 22 个项目。
检查表可能有助于评估设计用于验证体力活动仪器的研究的质量。未来的研究应测试检查表的内部一致性、重测信度和标准效度。
