| Titre : | Measurement Properties of the Multiple Errands Test: A Systematic Review (2020) |
| Auteurs : | Shlomit Rotenberg ; Moira Ruthralingam ; Brett Hnatiw ; Kimberley Neufeld ; Kirstin E. Yuzwa ; Ifah Arbel ; Deirdre Dawson |
| Type de document : | Article : Périodique |
| Dans : | Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Vol. 101, n° 9, 2020) |
| Article en page(s) : | p. 1628-1642 |
| Note générale : | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.01.019 |
| Langues: | Anglais |
| Descripteurs : |
HE Vinci Fonctions exécutives ; Réadaptation ; Revue systématique |
| Résumé : |
Objective
To systematically review, summarize, and evaluate published evidence on measurement properties of real-world versions of the Multiple Errands Test (MET) following Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Data Sources Four databases were searched in May 2019 using multiple variants of the name of the MET from 1991 onward following the publication of the original MET. Study Selection We included peer-reviewed original research articles in English that provided data on measurement properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change) on real-world versions of the MET in any clinical population. Data Extraction Data on the MET characteristics, study population, and evidence for each measurement property were extracted using predefined criteria. The review team critically appraised the methodological quality and rated the results from each study as sufficient (+), insufficient (−), or indeterminate (?). Data Summary Data on each measurement property were pooled. Pooled results were rated as sufficient (+), insufficient (−), mixed (±), or indeterminate (?). The overall quality of evidence per measurement property was graded based on risk of bias, sample size, and consistency of results. The overall evidence for each measurement property was determined as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results We found 33 studies that provided data on measurement properties of real-world versions of the MET. Pooled results revealed high-quality evidence for interrater reliability and moderate-quality evidence for known-group validity. Limited support for other kinds of reliability and validity was found. Conclusions This review suggests the MET should be used cautiously. Reasons for the limited psychometric support are discussed, the value of generic forms of the MET that do not require site specific adaptations is noted, and areas for further psychometric work are highlighted. |
| Disponible en ligne : | Oui |
| En ligne : | https://login.ezproxy.vinci.be/login?url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999320301106 |
Bibliothèques HE Vinci
