A Systematic Review Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Parent or Caregiver Report Instruments on Child Maltreatment: Part 2: Internal Consistency, Reliability, Measurement Error, Structural Validity, Hypothesis Testing, Cross-Cultural Validity, and Criterion Validity

Yoon, Sangwon, Speyer, Renée, Cordier, Reinie, Aunio, Pirjo and Hakkarainen, Airi (2021) A Systematic Review Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Parent or Caregiver Report Instruments on Child Maltreatment: Part 2: Internal Consistency, Reliability, Measurement Error, Structural Validity, Hypothesis Testing, Cross-Cultural Validity, and Criterion Validity. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22 (5). pp. 1296-1315. ISSN 1524-8380

Preview	Text (Final published version) 1524838020915591.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (1MB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Advance online version) 1524838020915591.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (745kB) | Preview

Abstract

Aims: Child maltreatment (CM) is global public health issue with devastating lifelong consequences. Global organizations have endeavored to eliminate CM; however, there is lack of consensus on what instruments are most suitable for the investigation and prevention of CM. This systematic review aimed to appraise the psychometric properties (other than content validity) of all current parent- or caregiver-reported CM instruments and recommend the most suitable for use. Method: A systematic search of the CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Sociological Abstracts databases was performed. The evaluation of psychometric properties was conducted according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-report outcome measures. Responsiveness was beyond the scope of this systematic review, and content validity has been reported on in a companion paper (Part 1). Only instruments developed and published in English were included. Results: Twenty-five studies reported on selected psychometric properties of 15 identified instruments. The methodological quality of the studies was overall adequate. The psychometric properties of the instruments were generally indeterminate or not reported due to incomplete or missing psychometric data; high-quality evidence on the psychometric properties was limited. Conclusions: No instruments could be recommended as most suitable for use in clinic and research. Nine instruments were identified as promising based on current psychometric data but would need further psychometric evidence for them to be recommended.

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads