Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge Biomedical Campus CB2 OAH, Cambridge, UK.
Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, P. O. Box 1934, Kumasi, Ghana.
Neuropsychol Rev. 2022 Dec;32(4):974-1016. doi: 10.1007/s11065-022-09538-3. Epub 2022 Mar 29.
Minimal but increasing number of assessment instruments for Executive functions (EFs) and adaptive functioning (AF) have either been developed for or adapted and validated for use among children in low and middle income countries (LAMICs). However, the suitability of these tools for this context is unclear. A systematic review of such instruments was thus undertaken. The Systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist (Liberati et al., in BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 339, 2009). A search was made for primary research papers reporting psychometric properties for development or adaptation of either EF or AF tools among children in LAMICs, with no date or language restrictions. 14 bibliographic databases were searched, including grey literature. Risk of bias assessment was done following the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) guidelines (Mokkink et al., in Quality of Life Research, 63, 32, 2014). For EF, the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF- multiple versions), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Go/No-go and the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) were the most rigorously validated. For AFs, the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (VABS- multiple versions) and the Child Function Impairment Rating Scale (CFIRS- first edition) were most validated. Most of these tools showed adequate internal consistency and structural validity. However, none of these tools showed acceptable quality of evidence for sufficient psychometric properties across all the measured domains, particularly so for content validity and cross-cultural validity in LAMICs. There is a great need for adequate adaptation of the most popular EF and AF instruments, or alternatively the development of purpose-made instruments for assessing children in LAMICs.Systematic Review Registration numbers: CRD42020202190 (EF tools systematic review) and CRD42020203968 (AF tools systematic review) registered on PROSPERO website ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ).
用于评估执行功能 (EF) 和适应功能 (AF) 的评估工具数量较少,但已针对中低收入国家 (LMIC) 的儿童开发或改编和验证。然而,这些工具在这种情况下的适用性尚不清楚。因此,对这些工具进行了系统评价。
该系统评价遵循《系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 清单》(Liberati 等人,在《英国医学杂志 (临床研究版)》,339,2009 年)。对报告了 EF 或 AF 工具在 LMIC 中儿童开发或改编的心理测量特性的原始研究论文进行了搜索,没有日期或语言限制。共搜索了 14 个书目数据库,包括灰色文献。使用 COSMIN(健康状况测量工具选择的共识标准)指南 (Mokkink 等人,在《生活质量研究》,63,32,2014 年) 对偏倚风险进行了评估。
对于 EF,行为评定量表的执行功能 (BRIEF-多个版本)、威斯康星卡片分类测验 (WCST)、Go/No-go 和 Rey-Osterrieth 复杂图形 (ROCF) 是最严格验证的。对于 AF,最验证的是适应行为量表的 Vineland (VABS-多个版本) 和儿童功能障碍评定量表 (CFIRS-第一版)。这些工具中的大多数具有足够的内部一致性和结构有效性。然而,这些工具都没有在所有测量领域显示出足够的心理测量特性的证据质量,尤其是在 LMIC 的内容有效性和跨文化有效性方面。
迫切需要对最流行的 EF 和 AF 工具进行充分的改编,或者为评估 LMIC 中的儿童开发专用工具。
CRD42020202190 (EF 工具系统评价) 和 CRD42020203968 (AF 工具系统评价) 在 PROSPERO 网站 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) 上注册。