A Systematic Review Evaluating Psychometric Properties of Parent or Caregiver Report Instruments on Child Maltreatment: Part 1: Content Validity

Abstract

Aims: Child maltreatment (CM) is a serious public health issue, affecting over half of all children globally. Although most CM is perpetrated by parents or caregivers and their reports of CM is more accurate than professionals or children, parent or caregiver report instruments measuring CM have never been systematically evaluated for their content validity, the most important psychometric property. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the content validity of all current parent or caregiver report CM instruments. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Sociological Abstracts; gray literature was retrieved through reference checking. Eligible studies needed to report on content validity of instruments measuring CM perpetrated and reported by parents or caregivers. The quality of studies and content validity of the instruments were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines. Results: Fifteen studies reported on the content validity of 15 identified instruments. The study quality was generally poor. The content validity of the instruments was overall sufficient, but most instruments did not provide high-quality evidence for content validity. Conclusions: Most instruments included in this review showed promising content validity. The International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool for use in Trial appears to be the most promising, followed by the Family Maltreatment–Child Abuse criteria. However, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to the low quality of evidence for content validity. Further studies are required to evaluate the remaining psychometric properties for recommending parent or caregiver report CM instruments.

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

“…As a criterion for category A, content validity, internal consistency, and/or structural validity (not the criterion but as a prerequisite for internal consistency) of all nine instruments should be further evaluated as a priority. In a companion paper (Part 1; Yoon et al, 2020), no high-quality evidence for content validity of any promising instruments (except FM-CA) was found due to missing data or lack of robust evidence in the content validity studies. For this reason, future studies on content validity may provide additional information and result in changed overall quality ratings of evidence for content validity.…”

“…Note . Responsiveness was outside the scope of this review; Content validity was evaluated in a companion paper (Part 1; Yoon et al, 2020).…”

“…The aim of this systematic review (Part 2) was to evaluate psychometric properties (other than content validity) of all current parent- or caregiver-reported CM instruments and to recommend the most suitable parent- or caregiver-reported CM instruments using the COSMIN guidelines (Prinsen et al, 2018). Content validity has been evaluated and reported on in a companion paper (Part 1; Yoon et al, 2020).…”

Validation of content and appearance of an educational manual to promote children’s mental health

“…Para a análise de dados, foi calculado o grau de concordância entre os juízes especialistas (profissionais da saúde e educação) para cada item do instrumento e para o instrumento como um todo, por meio do cálculo do Índice de Validade de Conteúdo (IVC), que corresponde à divisão entre a soma do número de respostas em concordância (itens que foram marcados como 3 ou 4) pelo total de respostas (8)(9)(10) .…”

“…O cálculo para o IVC geral foi realizado por meio da soma de todos os IVC calculados para cada item do instrumento, dividida pelo número itens. O índice mínimo de concordância do IVC considerado nesse estudo foi de 0,75 (10) . Para a qualificação das respostas do público-alvo, foi utilizado o cálculo do Índice de Concordância (IC).…”