Rasch Analysis of the Daily Living Tasks Dependent on Vision (DLTV)

PURPOSE. To examine internal consistency, refine the response scale, and obtain a linear scoring system for the visual function instrument, the Daily Living Tasks Dependent on Vision (DLTV). METHODS. Data were available from 186 participants with a clinical diagnosis of AMD who completed the 22-item DLTV (DLTV-22) according to four-point ordinal response scale. An independent group of 386 participants with AMD were administered a reduced version of the DLTV with 11 items (DLTV-11), according to a five-point response scale. Rasch analysis was performed on both datasets and used to generate item statistics for measure order, response odds ratios per item and per person, and infit and outfit mean square statistics. The Rasch output from the DLTV-22 was examined to identify redundant items and for factorial validity and person item measure separation reliabilities. RESULTS. The average rating for the DLTV-22 changed monotonically with the magnitude of the latent person trait. The expected versus observed average measures were extremely close, with step calibrations evenly separated for the four-point ordinal scale. In the case of the DLTV-11, step calibrations were not as evenly separated, suggesting that the five-point scale should be reduced to either a four- or three-point scale. Five items in the DLTV-22 were removed, and all 17 remaining items had good infit and outfit mean squares. PCA with residuals from Rasch analysis identified two domains containing 7 and 10 items each. The domains had high person separation reliabilities (0.86 and 0.77 for domains 1 and 2, respectively) and item measure reliabilities (0.99 and 0.98 for domains 1 and 2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS. With the improved internal consistency, establishment of the accuracy and precision of the rating scale for the DLTV and the establishment of a valid domain structure we believe that it constitutes a useful instrument for assessing visual function in older adults with age-related macular degeneration.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the adolescent self-report strengths and difficulties questionnaire

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a widely used 25-item screening test for emotional and behavioral problems in children and adolescents. This study attempted to critically examine the factor structure of the adolescent self-report version. As part of an ongoing longitudinal cohort study, a total of 3,753 pupils completed the SDQ when aged 12. Both three- and five-factor exploratory factor analysis models were estimated. A number of deviations from the hypothesized SDQ structure were observed, including a lack of unidimensionality within particular subscales, cross-loadings, and items failing to load on any factor. Model fit of the confirmatory factor analysis model was modest, providing limited support for the hypothesized five-component structure. The analyses suggested a number of weaknesses within the component structure of the self-report SDQ, particularly in relation to the reverse-coded items.

The structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis in UK students

The aim of this paper was to confirm the factor structure of the 20-item Beck Hopelessness Scale in a non-clinical population. Previous research has highlighted a lack of clarity in its construct validity with regards to this population.

Based on previous factor analytic findings from both clinical and non-clinical studies, 13 separate confirmatory factor models were specified and estimated using LISREL 8.72 to test the one, two and three-factor models.

Psychology and medical students at Queen's University, Belfast (n = 581) completed both the BHS and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

All models showed reasonable fit, but only one, a four-item single-factor model demonstrated a nonsignificant chi-squared statistic. These four items can be used to derive a Short-Form BHS (SBHS) in which increasing scores (0-4) corresponded with increasing scores in the BDI. The four items were also drawn from all three of Beck's proposed triad, and included both positively and negatively scored items.

This study in a UK undergraduate non-clinical population suggests that the BHS best measures a one-factor model of hopelessness. It appears that a shorter four-item scale can also measure this one-factor model. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

An analysis of the masking of speech by competing speech using self-report data (L)

Many of the items in the “Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing” scale questionnaire [S. Gatehouse and W. Noble, Int. J. Audiol.43, 85–99 (2004)] are concerned with speech understanding in a variety of backgrounds, both speech and nonspeech. To study if this self-report data reflected informational masking, previously collected data on 414 people were analyzed. The lowest scores (greatest difficulties) were found for the two items in which there were two speech targets, with successively higher scores for competing speech (six items), energetic masking (one item), and no masking (three items). The results suggest significant masking by competing speech in everyday listening situations.

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data The PRISMA-IPD Statement

IMPORTANCE Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and reanalyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are therefore considered a gold standard approach to evidence synthesis. They are likely to be used with increasing frequency as current initiatives to share clinical trial data gain momentum and may be particularly important in reviewing controversial therapeutic areas.

OBJECTIVE To develop PRISMA-IPD as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement, tailored to the specific requirements of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts, including reviews of diagnosis and prognosis.

DESIGN Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop that included researchers, clinicians, methodologists experienced in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD, and journal editors. The statement was drafted and iterative refinements were made by the project, advisory, and development groups. The PRISMA-IPD Development Group reached agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram by consensus.

FINDINGS Compared with standard PRISMA, the PRISMA-IPD checklist includes 3 new items that address (1) methods of checking the integrity of the IPD (such as pattern of randomization, data consistency, baseline imbalance, and missing data), (2) reporting any important issues that emerge, and (3) exploring variation (such as whether certain types of individual benefit more from the intervention than others). A further additional item was created by reorganization of standard PRISMA items relating to interpreting results. Wording was modified in 23 items to reflect the IPD approach.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE PRISMA-IPD provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.