Richardson Jessica D, Hudspeth Dalton Sarah Grace, Shafer Jennifer, Patterson Janet
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
inVentiv Health Clinical, Princeton, NJ.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016 Dec 1;25(4S):S788-S797. doi: 10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0146.
In aphasia treatment literature, scarce attention is paid to factors that may reduce a study's validity, including adherence to assessment and treatment procedures (i.e., fidelity). Although guidelines have been established for evaluating and reporting treatment fidelity, none exist for assessment fidelity.
We reviewed treatment fidelity guidelines and related literature to identify assessment fidelity components. We then examined 88 aphasia treatment studies published between 2010 and 2015 and report the frequency with which researchers provide information regarding the following assessment fidelity components: assessment instruments, assessor qualifications, assessor or rater training, assessment delivery, assessor or rater reliability, and assessor blinding.
We found that 4.5% of studies reported information regarding assessment instruments, 35.2% reported information regarding assessor qualifications, 6.85% reported information regarding assessor or rater training, 37.5% reported information regarding assessor or rater reliability, 27.3% reported on assessor blinding, and no studies reported information regarding assessment delivery.
There is a paucity of assessment fidelity information reported in aphasia treatment research. The authors propose a set of guidelines to ensure readers will be able to evaluate assessment fidelity, and thus study validity.
在失语症治疗文献中,对于可能降低研究效度的因素关注较少,这些因素包括对评估和治疗程序的遵循情况(即保真度)。虽然已经制定了评估和报告治疗保真度的指南,但尚无评估保真度的相关指南。
我们回顾了治疗保真度指南及相关文献,以确定评估保真度的组成部分。然后我们查阅了2010年至2015年间发表的88项失语症治疗研究,并报告研究人员提供以下评估保真度组成部分信息的频率:评估工具、评估者资质、评估者或评分者培训、评估实施、评估者或评分者信度以及评估者盲法。
我们发现4.5%的研究报告了有关评估工具的信息,35.2%报告了有关评估者资质的信息,6.85%报告了有关评估者或评分者培训的信息,37.5%报告了有关评估者或评分者信度的信息,27.3%报告了评估者盲法的信息,且没有研究报告有关评估实施的信息。
失语症治疗研究中报告的评估保真度信息匮乏。作者提出了一套指南,以确保读者能够评估评估保真度,进而评估研究效度。