Inventory of assessment practices in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in three European countries

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews

PURPOSE

Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.

METHODS

One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.

RESULTS

A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.

CONCLUSION

Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

An Eye-Tracking Study on Six Early Social-Emotional Abilities in Children Aged 1 to 3 Years

BACKGROUND

The experimental evaluation of young children's socio-emotional abilities is limited by the lack of existing specific measures to assess this population and by the relative difficulty for researchers to adapt measures designed for the general population.

METHODS

This study examined six early social-emotional abilities in 86 typically developing children aged 1 to 3 years using an eye-tracking-based experimental paradigm that combined visual preference tasks adapted from pre-existing infant studies.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to obtain developmental norms in six early social-emotional abilities in typical children aged 1 to 3 years that would be promising for an understanding of disorders of mental development. These developmental standards are essential to enable comparative assessments with children with atypical development, such as children with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities (PIMD).

RESULTS

The participants had greater spontaneous visual preferences for biological (vs. non-biological) motion, socially salient (vs. non-social) stimuli, the eye (vs. mouth) area of emotional expressions, angry (vs. happy) faces, and objects of joint attention (vs. non-looked-at ones). Interestingly, although the prosocial (vs. antisocial) scene of the socio-moral task was preferred, both the helper and hinderer characters were equally gazed at. Finally, correlational analyses revealed that performance was neither related to participants' age nor to each other (dismissing the hypothesis of a common underpinning process).

CONCLUSION

Our revised experimental paradigm is possible in infants aged 1 to 3 years and thus provides additional scientific proof on the direct assessment of these six socio-emotional abilities in this population.