Objective: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation is a multi-domain measurement with good content validity, structural validity and reliability for measuring physical functioning ... Show moreObjective: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation is a multi-domain measurement with good content validity, structural validity and reliability for measuring physical functioning (mobility, selfcare) and cognitive functioning in geriatric rehabilitation. We aimed to determine the construct validity of both Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation scales and the responsiveness and interpretability of the scale for physical functioning in geriatric rehabilitation.Design: Prospective follow-up study embedded in routine care.Setting: Four care organisations in The Netherlands.Subjects: Patients admitted for inpatient geriatric rehabilitation (2021-2022).Main measures: Data collection included the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation, Mini-Mental State Examination, Barthel index, and a global rating scale anchor on recovery. Hypothesis testing was used to determine construct validity and responsiveness. For interpretability, minimal important change and floor and ceiling effects were determined.Results: The mean age of participants (n=211) was 77 (SD 10.4). Their mean length of stay was 38.6 days (SD 26.3), and 81% returned home. The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation showed adequate construct validity, as all three hypotheses were confirmed for both scales. The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-physical function scale showed adequate responsiveness, with all five hypotheses confirmed. The mean change for physical function (scale range 0-70) was 15.5 points (SD 17.1). The minimal important change for Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation-physical function was 14.5 points difference for improvement. This scale showed no floor (2%) and ceiling effects (14%) at admission and discharge.Conclusions: The Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation showed to be effective for evaluating physical functioning during geriatric rehabilitation as well as screening cognitive functioning. In total, 14.5 points difference has been established as a minimal important change for physical functioning. Show less
Aims: Child maltreatment (CM) is a global public health and social problem, resulting in serious long-term health and socioeconomic consequences. As parents are the most common perpetrators of CM,... Show moreAims: Child maltreatment (CM) is a global public health and social problem, resulting in serious long-term health and socioeconomic consequences. As parents are the most common perpetrators of CM, parenting interventions are appropriate strategies to prevent CM. However, research on parenting interventions on CM has been hampered by lack of consensus on what measures are most responsive to detect a reduction in parental maltreating behaviours after parenting intervention. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the responsiveness of all current parent- or caregiver-reported CM measures. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed and Sociological Abstracts. The quality of studies and responsiveness of the measures were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Only measures developed and published in English were included. Studies reporting data on responsiveness of the included measures were selected. Results: Sixty-nine articles reported on responsiveness of 15 identified measures. The study quality was overall adequate. The responsiveness of the measures was overall insufficient or not reported; high-quality evidence on responsiveness was limited. Conclusions: Only the Physical Abuse subscale of the ISPCAN Child Abuse Screening Tool for use in Trials (ICAST-Trial) can be recommended as most responsive for use in parenting interventions, with high-quality evidence supporting sufficient responsiveness. All other overall scales or subscales of the 15 included measures were identified as promising based on current data on responsiveness. Additional psychometric evidence is required before they can be recommended. Show less
Aims:Child maltreatment (CM) is global public health issue with devastating lifelong consequences. Global organizations have endeavored to eliminate CM; however, there is lack of consensus on what... Show moreAims:Child maltreatment (CM) is global public health issue with devastating lifelong consequences. Global organizations have endeavored to eliminate CM; however, there is lack of consensus on what instruments are most suitable for the investigation and prevention of CM. This systematic review aimed to appraise the psychometric properties (other than content validity) of all current parent- or caregiver-reported CM instruments and recommend the most suitable for use.Method:A systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Sociological Abstracts databases was performed. The evaluation of psychometric properties was conducted according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-report outcome measures. Responsiveness was beyond the scope of this systematic review, and content validity has been reported on in a companion paper (Part 1). Only instruments developed and published in English were included.Results:Twenty-five studies reported on selected psychometric properties of 15 identified instruments. The methodological quality of the studies was overall adequate. The psychometric properties of the instruments were generally indeterminate or not reported due to incomplete or missing psychometric data; high-quality evidence on the psychometric properties was limited.Conclusions:No instruments could be recommended as most suitable for use in clinic and research. Nine instruments were identified as promising based on current psychometric data but would need further psychometric evidence for them to be recommended. Show less
Aims: Child maltreatment (CM) is a serious public health issue, affecting over half of all children globally. Although most CM is perpetrated by parents or caregivers and their reports of CM is... Show moreAims: Child maltreatment (CM) is a serious public health issue, affecting over half of all children globally. Although most CM is perpetrated by parents or caregivers and their reports of CM is more accurate than professionals or children, parent or caregiver report instruments measuring CM have never been systematically evaluated for their content validity, the most important psychometric property. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the content validity of all current parent or caregiver report CM instruments. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Sociological Abstracts; gray literature was retrieved through reference checking. Eligible studies needed to report on content validity of instruments measuring CM perpetrated and reported by parents or caregivers. The quality of studies and content validity of the instruments were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines. Results: Fifteen studies reported on the content validity of 15 identified instruments. The study quality was generally poor. The content validity of the instruments was overall sufficient, but most instruments did not provide high-quality evidence for content validity. Conclusions: Most instruments included in this review showed promising content validity. The International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool for use in Trial appears to be the most promising, followed by the Family Maltreatment-Child Abuse criteria. However, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to the low quality of evidence for content validity. Further studies are required to evaluate the remaining psychometric properties for recommending parent or caregiver report CM instruments. Show less
Visschedijk, J.H.M.; Terwee, C.B.; Caljouw, M.A.A.; Spruit-van Eijk, M.; Balen, R. van; Achterberg, W.P. 2015
