Measurement Properties of the Multiple Errands Test: A Systematic Review.
Executive function
Rehabilitation
Systematic review
Journal
Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1532-821X
Titre abrégé: Arch Phys Med Rehabil
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985158R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
21
11
2019
revised:
22
12
2019
accepted:
01
01
2020
pubmed:
3
3
2020
medline:
10
10
2020
entrez:
2
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32113973
pii: S0003-9993(20)30110-6
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.01.019
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1628-1642Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.