Fox Benjamin, Henwood Timothy, Keogh Justin, Neville Christine
1School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Australia 2Blue Care, Brisbane, Australia 3Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia 4Human Potential Centre, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand 5Cluster for Health Improvement, Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia 6School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Australia.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Aug;14(8):115-71. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003064.
Confidence in findings can only be drawn from measurement tools that have sound psychometric properties for the population with which they are used. Within a dementia specific population, measures of physical function have been poorly justified in exercise intervention studies, with justification of measures based on validity or reliability studies from dissimilar clinical populations, such as people with bronchitis or healthy older adults without dementia.
To review the reliability and validity of quantitative measures of pre-identified physical function, as commonly used within exercise intervention literature for adults with dementia.
Participants were adults, aged 65 years and older, with a confirmed medical diagnosis of dementia.
TYPES OF INTERVENTION(S)/PHENOMENA OF INTEREST: n/a
Desired studies were observational and cross-sectional and that assessed measures from a pre-identified list of measures of physical function.
Studies that assessed the psychometric constructs of reliability and validity were targeted. COSMIN taxology was used to define reliability and validity. This included, but were not limited to, Intra-Class Correlations, Kappa, Cronbach's Alpha, Chi Squared, Standard Error of Measurement, Minimal Detectable Change and Limits of Agreement.
Published material was sourced from the following four databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science. Grey literature was searched for using ALOIS, Google Scholar and ProQuest.
The COSMIN checklist was used to assess methodological quality of included studies. Assessment was completed by two reviewers independently.
Reliability and validity data was extracted from included studies using standardized Joanna Briggs Institute data collection forms. Extraction was completed by two reviewers.
A narrative synthesis of measurement properties of the tools used to measure physical function was performed. Quantitative meta-analysis was conducted for Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients only.
With respect to relative reliability, studies reporting assessed measures had intraclass correlation coefficients greater than 0.71, indicating their suitability for use at a group level. However, a consistent finding among studies that included assessment of absolute reliability was that intra individual variation was too large for meaningful measurement of individuals. This was indicated by large Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) scores. Walk Speed has the smallest reported Mimimal Detectable Change score at 0.11m/s. This represented a change of 35% before statistical variation could be eliminated as the cause for this change. All measures had large MDC values. Walk Speed had the smallest MDC values at 0.11m/s, which represented a necessary change of 35%. Only a limited number of studies assessed the validity of measures. This supports the use of these measures in a very narrow selection of circumstances (see Summary of Findings).
In summary, measures have shown appropriate levels of relative reliability. This supports their use at the group level. However, large levels of intra-individual variation undermine their applicability at the individual level. Limited studies of validity were available to this review, which limits a conclusion on whether measures are valid for people with dementia.
研究结果的可信度只能从那些对所使用人群具有良好心理测量特性的测量工具中得出。在痴呆症特定人群中,运动干预研究中对身体功能测量方法的合理性论证不足,其测量方法的合理性是基于来自不同临床人群(如支气管炎患者或无痴呆症的健康老年人)的效度或信度研究。
回顾运动干预文献中常用的、针对痴呆症成年人预先确定的身体功能定量测量方法的信度和效度。
纳入标准 参与者类型:参与者为65岁及以上、经医学确诊患有痴呆症 的成年人。
干预类型/感兴趣的现象:无
所需研究为观察性和横断面研究,且评估来自预先确定的身体功能测量方法列表中的测量方法。
以评估信度和效度心理测量结构的研究为目标。使用COSMIN分类法定义信度和效度。这包括但不限于组内相关系数、卡帕值、克朗巴哈系数、卡方检验、测量标准误、最小可检测变化和一致性界限。
已发表材料来自以下四个数据库:MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL和ISI科学网。使用ALOIS、谷歌学术和ProQuest搜索灰色文献。
使用COSMIN清单评估纳入研究的方法学质量。评估由两名评审员独立完成。
使用标准化的乔安娜·布里格斯研究所数据收集表从纳入研究中提取信度和效度数据。提取由两名评审员完成。
对用于测量身体功能的工具的测量特性进行叙述性综合。仅对组内相关系数进行定量荟萃分析。
关于相对信度,报告评估测量方法的研究的组内相关系数大于0.71,表明它们适用于组水平的使用。然而,在包括绝对信度评估的研究中一个一致的发现是,个体内差异太大,无法对个体进行有意义的测量。这由较大的最小可检测变化(MDC)分数表明。步行速度报告的最小可检测变化分数最小,为0.11m/s。这代表在作为该变化原因的统计变异消除之前有35%的变化。所有测量方法的MDC值都很大。步行速度的MDC值最小,为0.11m/s,这代表有必要有35%的变化。只有少数研究评估了测量方法的效度。这支持在非常有限的特定情况下使用这些测量方法(见研究结果总结)。
总之,测量方法已显示出适当水平的相对信度。这支持它们在组水平的使用。然而,个体内的巨大差异削弱了它们在个体水平的适用性。本综述可获得的效度研究有限,这限制了关于测量方法对痴呆症患者是否有效的结论。