Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies

International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 97-108

  Jarde, Alexander ^a   Losilla, Josep M ^a   Vives, Jaume ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Ex post facto studies; Instrumental study; Meta analyses; Quality assessment tools; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

EID: 84055217964     PISSN: 16972600     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
2. Berra, S., Elorza-Ricart, J.M., Estrada, M.D., and Sánchez, E. (2008). A tool for the critical appraisal of epidemiological cross-sectional studies. Gaceta Sanitaria, 22, 492-497.
3. Carretero-Dios, H. and Pérez, C. (2007). Standards for the development and review of instrumental studies: Considerations about test selection in psychological research. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 863-882.
4. Deeks, J.J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A.J., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., and Altman, D.G. (2003). Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment, 7, 1-173.
5. Downs, S.H. and Black, N. (1998). The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52, 377-384.
6. Fernández-Ríos, L. and Buela-Casal, G. (2009). Standards for the preparation and writing of Psychology review articles. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9, 329-344.
7. Fowkes, F.G. and Fulton, P.M. (1991). Critical appraisal of published research: Introductory guidelines. British Medical Journal, 302, 1136-1140.
8. Jarde, A., Losilla, J.M., and Vives, J. (in press). Methodological quality assessment tools of nonexperimental studies: A systematic review. Anales de Psicología.
9. Jüni, P., Altman, D.G., and Egger, M. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 323, 42-46.
10. Jüni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., and Egger, M. (1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1054-1060.
11. Kendall, M.G. (1938). A New Measure of Rank Correlation. Biometrika, 30, 81-93.
12. Mann, C.J. (2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: Cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emergency Medicine Journal, 20, 54-60.
13. Montero, I. and León, O.G. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 847-862.
14. Sanderson, S., Tatt, I.D., and Higgins, J.P. (2007). Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: A systematic review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 666-676.
15. Shrier, I., Boivin, J.F., Steele, R.J., Platt, R.W., Furlan, A., Kakuma, R., Brophy, J., and Rossignol, M. (2007). Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166, 1203-1209.
16. Shrout, P.E. and Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
17. Valentine, J.C. and Cooper,H. (2008). A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research: The Study Design and Implementation Assessment Device (Study DIAD). Psychological Methods, 13, 130-149.
18. Vandenbroucke, J.P., von Elm, E., Altman, D.G., Gøtzsche, P.C., Mulrow, C.D., Pocock, S.J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J.J., and Egger, M. (2007). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology, 18, 805-835.
19. Wells, K. and Littell, J.H. (2009). Study quality assessment in systematic reviews of research on intervention effects. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 52-62.
20. West, S., King, V., Carey, T.S., Lohr, K.N., McKoy, N., Sutton, S.F., and Lux, L. (2002). Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, 47, 1-11.