A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis of the Padua Inventory of Obsessions and Compulsions

A reliability generalization meta-analysis of the family resilience assessment scale (FRAS)

PROBLEM

Practitioners and researchers frequently rely on the Family Resilience Assessment Scale (FRAS) to assess family resilience, and previous research reported varying reliability statistics for the measurements with the scale. The present study aims to generalize the reliability of the FRAS based on Cronbach's alpha coefficients reported in the selected studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We selected relevant research on various databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, YÖK Thesis Center, DergiPark, and TR Index.

SAMPLE

Satisfying our inclusion criteria, fifty-five studies were included in the present study.

RESULTS

We calculated the reliability generalization coefficients for the FRAS total score to be 0.951 (95% CI [0.942, 0.958]) and 0.949 for Family Communication and Problem Solving, 0.792 for Utilizing Social and Economic Resources, 0.861 for Maintaining a Positive Outlook, 0.635 for Family Connectedness, 0.873 for Family Spirituality, and 0.702 for Ability to Make Meaning of Adversity.

CONCLUSIONS

In a nutshell, our findings secure substantial insights into the reliability of the FRAS and its subscales for prospective researchers and practitioners. In this study, generalized Cronbach's alpha values imply average, good, and acceptable reliability for the FRAS subscales and total score, except for Family Connectedness.

IMPLICATIONS

The distinct contribution of our research may be to reemphasize the significance of avoiding reliability induction and to raise awareness among prospective researchers of evaluating the reliability of any measurement they would obtain.

Florida Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory and Children's Florida Obsessive Compulsive Inventory: A reliability generalization meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Florida Obsessive Compulsive Inventory (FOCI) and its pediatric version, the Children's Florida Obsessive Compulsive Inventory (C-FOCI), are instruments for evaluating obsessive-compulsive symptomatology.

METHOD

A reliability generalization meta-analysis was conducted to estimate an average reliability of the scores and to identify study characteristics that explained the heterogeneity among scores. Using Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) and Cronbach's α, a total of 23 and 20 independent samples were included in the meta-analysis for the FOCI and C-FOCI.

RESULTS

We found an average KR-20 of 0.826 for the FOCI's Symptom Checklist and an α of 0.882 FOCI's Symptom Severity. An average KR-20 of 0.740 was found for the C-FOCI's Symptom Checklist, while an average α of 0.794 was found for the C-FOCI's Symptom Severity. Moderator analyses showed that the source of the coefficients (i.e., whether they were reported by the authors of the primary study or estimated by the meta-analysts) was an important variable for the FOCI Symptom Severity, and that the focus of the study (i.e., whether it was psychometric or applied) and the sample size were relevant for the C-FOCI Symptom Checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that the FOCI and C-FOCI are scales characterized by their brevity and ease of use, and the reliabilities obtained here, both scales are well suited for screening purposes.

A Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis of the Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R)

Background/Objective: The Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R) is a widely applied instrument to measure obsessive-compulsive symptoms in clinical and nonclinical samples. We conducted a reliability generalization meta-analysis on the PI-R. Method: An exhaustive literature search yielded 118 empirical studies that had applied the PI-R, from which 30 studies (33 samples) reported an original reliability estimate. Results: Assuming a random-effects model, the average internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was .92 (95% CI [.91, .93]) for the total scores, and ranged from .74 to .89 for the subscales. Assuming mixed-effects models, moderator analyses showed a positive statistically significant association between the standard deviation of the total scores and the reliability coefficients (p = .002; R² = .38). Conclusions: In terms of reliability, the PI-R scale was found to be adequate for both research and clinical purposes, although exhibiting large heterogeneity across studies. Future empirical studies using the PI-R should be required to provide at least one reliability estimate based on their own data.

The Medical Outcome Study-HIV Health Survey: A systematic review and reliability generalization meta-analysis

The Medical Outcome Study-HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV) is one of the most used questionnaires for the evaluation of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people living with HIV (PLWHIV) in both medical settings and research studies. This study aimed to estimate the average reliability of the MOS-HIV scores and to evaluate the characteristics of the studies that could explain the variability between reliability estimates. Furthermore, the study aimed to estimate the induction rate of the reliability of the MOS-HIV. A systematic review of the previous literature, including studies that reported α and/or test-retest coefficients with the data at hand for the total score of the MOS-HIV and the subscales, was conducted. Fifty studies (52 samples; N = 14,132) were included in the reliability generalization meta-analysis. The average α coefficient for the total score of MOS-HIV was .91 and above .80 for all of the subscales, except for role functioning, which had an average coefficient of .76. Different study dimensions were related to the heterogeneity of reliability between studies. Reliability induction was found to be 76.1%. The results obtained in the present study indicate that the MOS-HIV is a reliable instrument for HRQoL evaluation in PLWHIV, for clinical and research purposes. In the clinical practice of health services, nurses could employ this gold standard for reliable evaluations of HRQoL in PLWHIV.

The Padua Inventory-Washington State University Revision of Obsessions and Compulsions: A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis

The Padua Inventory-Washington State University Revision (PI-WSUR) is a frequently used test to assess obsessive-compulsive symptoms in screening and clinical contexts. A reliability generalization meta-analysis was carried out to estimate the average reliability of the PI-WSUR scores and its subscales and to search for characteristics of the studies that can explain the heterogeneity among reliability coefficients. A total of 124 independent samples reported some coefficient alpha or test-retest correlation with the data at hand for the PI-WSUR scores. The average internal consistency reliability of the PI-WSUR total scores was .929 (95% CI [.922, .936]), and for the subscales, the means ranged from .792 to .900. The test-retest reliability for PI-WSUR total scores was .767 (95% CI [.700, .820]), with the subscales ranging from .540 to .790. Moderator analyses revealed a positive relationship between the standard deviation of PI-WSUR total scores and alpha coefficients, as well as higher reliability estimates for the original version of the test and for studies from North America. The reliability induction rate for the PI-WSUR was 53.7%. Regarding reliability, the PI-WSUR ranks among the best scales for assessing obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Internal consistency reliability was excellent for the PI-WSUR total score and good for the subscales.