CONTEXT: The quality of methodological papers assessing physical activity instruments depends upon the rigor of a study's design. OBJECTIVES: We present a checklist to assess key criteria for instrument validation studies. PROCESS: A Medline/PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines for evaluating the methodological quality of instrument validation studies. Based upon the literature, a pilot version of a checklist was developed consisting of 21 items with 3 subscales: 1) quality of the reported data (9 items: assess whether the reported information is sufficient to make an unbiased assessment of the findings); 2) external validity of the results (3 items: assess the extent to which the findings are generalizable); 3) internal validity of the study (9 items: assess the rigor of the study design). The checklist was tested for interrater reliability and feasibility with 6 raters. FINDINGS: Raters viewed the checklist as helpful for reviewing studies. They suggested minor wording changes for 8 items to clarify intent. One item was divided into 2 items for a total of 22 items. DISCUSSION: Checklists may be useful to assess the quality of studies designed to validate physical activity instruments. Future research should test checklist internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.
CONTEXT: The quality of methodological papers assessing physical activity instruments depends upon the rigor of a study's design. OBJECTIVES: We present a checklist to assess key criteria for instrument validation studies. PROCESS: A Medline/PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines for evaluating the methodological quality of instrument validation studies. Based upon the literature, a pilot version of a checklist was developed consisting of 21 items with 3 subscales: 1) quality of the reported data (9 items: assess whether the reported information is sufficient to make an unbiased assessment of the findings); 2) external validity of the results (3 items: assess the extent to which the findings are generalizable); 3) internal validity of the study (9 items: assess the rigor of the study design). The checklist was tested for interrater reliability and feasibility with 6 raters. FINDINGS: Raters viewed the checklist as helpful for reviewing studies. They suggested minor wording changes for 8 items to clarify intent. One item was divided into 2 items for a total of 22 items. DISCUSSION: Checklists may be useful to assess the quality of studies designed to validate physical activity instruments. Future research should test checklist internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.
Authors: Marie-Louise K Mikkelsen; Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff; Peder Frederiksen; Graham Horgan; Ruairi O'Driscoll; António L Palmeira; Sarah E Scott; James Stubbs; Berit L Heitmann; Sofus C Larsen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Roosmarijn Verstraeten; Carl Lachat; Angélica Ochoa-Avilés; Maria Hagströmer; Lieven Huybregts; Susana Andrade; Silvana Donoso; John Van Camp; Lea Maes; Patrick Kolsteren Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Janelle A Gifford; Josephine D Gwynn; Louise L Hardy; Nicole Turner; Lily C Henderson; Christine Innes-Hughes; Victoria M Flood Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2018-07-13