Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies
The evaluation of the methodological quality of primary studies in systematic reviews is of great importance in order to guarantee the validity and reliability of their results, but there is no agreement on which tool should be used. Our aim is to analyze the tools proposed so far for the assessment...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2012 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:132507 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/132507 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.6018/analesps.28.2.148911 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Non-experimental studies Methodological quality Quality assessment tools Systematic review Estudios no experimentales Calidad metodológica Instrumentos de medida de la calidad Revisión sistemática |
| id |
ES_8b29618f2cdbaaeab088c9e23091d2bd |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ddd.uab.cat:132507 |
| network_acronym_str |
ES |
| network_name_str |
España |
| spelling |
Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies a systematic review Instrumentos de evaluación de la calidad metodológica de estudios no experimentales Jarde, Alexander Losilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847 Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275 Non-experimental studies Methodological quality Quality assessment tools Systematic review Estudios no experimentales Calidad metodológica Instrumentos de medida de la calidad Revisión sistemática The evaluation of the methodological quality of primary studies in systematic reviews is of great importance in order to guarantee the validity and reliability of their results, but there is no agreement on which tool should be used. Our aim is to analyze the tools proposed so far for the assessment of cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies in psychology and health sciences. A systematic review was performed using 5 electronic databases and Google®. In order to analyze the tools' content, 6 domains of quality were defined based on reporting guidelines, the established bibliography, and previous similar studies. 74 tools were identified and analyzed. Few reported their reliability (20%) or validity (14%). The most frequently addressed content domains were Data collection (71.6%), Selection (67.6%), Statistics and data analysis (67.6%), and Measurement (58.1%); only 35.1% addressed Representativeness, and 6.8% addressed Funding. Despite the strengths we found scattered among the tools, there is no single obvious choice if we had to make any recommendation. Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies should meet standardized development criteria, but previously it is necessary to reach an agreement on which content domains they should take into account La evaluación de la calidad metodológica de los estudios primarios en una revisión sistemática es importante para garantizar la validez y fiabilidad de sus resultados, pero no existe acuerdo sobre qué instrumento debería usarse para hacerlo. Nuestro objetivo es analizar los instrumentos de medida utilizados en psicología y las ciencias de la salud para la valoración de estudios de cohortes, de casos y controles, y transversales. Se realizó una revisión sistemática usando 5 bases de datos y Google®. Para analizar el contenido de los instrumentos se definieron 6 dimensiones de calidad en base a guías de comunicación, bibliografía de referencia y estudios similares. Se identificaron y analizaron 74 instrumentos. Pocos indicaban su fiabilidad (20%) o validez (14%). Las dimensiones consideradas con más frecuencia fueron Obtención de datos (71.6%), Selección (67.6%), Análisis de datos y estadística (67.7%) y Medición (58.1%). Sólo un 35.1% consideraron Representatividad, y un 6.8% considera la Financiación. Pese a los puntos fuertes diseminados en los diferentes instrumentos, no hay ninguno que se pueda recomendar sin reservas. Un instrumento de medida para valorar la calidad metodológica de estudios no experimentales debería seguir un proceso de desarrollo estandarizado, pero previamente es necesario un acuerdo sobre qué dimensiones debería evaluar https://ddd.uab.cat/record/132507 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.6018/analesps.28.2.148911 |
| title |
Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies |
| spellingShingle |
Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies Jarde, Alexander Non-experimental studies Methodological quality Quality assessment tools Systematic review Estudios no experimentales Calidad metodológica Instrumentos de medida de la calidad Revisión sistemática |
| title_short |
Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies |
| title_full |
Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies |
| title_fullStr |
Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies |
| title_sort |
Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies |
| author |
Jarde, Alexander |
| author_facet |
Jarde, Alexander Losilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847 Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275 |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Losilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847 Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275 |
| author2_role |
author author |
| topic |
Non-experimental studies Methodological quality Quality assessment tools Systematic review Estudios no experimentales Calidad metodológica Instrumentos de medida de la calidad Revisión sistemática |
| topic_facet |
Non-experimental studies Methodological quality Quality assessment tools Systematic review Estudios no experimentales Calidad metodológica Instrumentos de medida de la calidad Revisión sistemática |
| description |
The evaluation of the methodological quality of primary studies in systematic reviews is of great importance in order to guarantee the validity and reliability of their results, but there is no agreement on which tool should be used. Our aim is to analyze the tools proposed so far for the assessment of cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies in psychology and health sciences. A systematic review was performed using 5 electronic databases and Google®. In order to analyze the tools' content, 6 domains of quality were defined based on reporting guidelines, the established bibliography, and previous similar studies. 74 tools were identified and analyzed. Few reported their reliability (20%) or validity (14%). The most frequently addressed content domains were Data collection (71.6%), Selection (67.6%), Statistics and data analysis (67.6%), and Measurement (58.1%); only 35.1% addressed Representativeness, and 6.8% addressed Funding. Despite the strengths we found scattered among the tools, there is no single obvious choice if we had to make any recommendation. Methodological quality assessment tools of non-experimental studies should meet standardized development criteria, but previously it is necessary to reach an agreement on which content domains they should take into account |
| publishDate |
2012 |
| format |
article |
| url |
https://ddd.uab.cat/record/132507 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.6018/analesps.28.2.148911 |
| language |
eng |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| institution |
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| collection |
Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| reponame_str |
Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| instname_str |
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| _version_ |
1878437596818833408 |
| publishDateSort |
2012 |
| author_browse |
Jarde, Alexander Losilla Vidal, Josep Maria|||0000-0002-5140-5847 Vives Brosa, Jaume|||0000-0001-5412-7275 |
| score |
6.9303427 |