An examination of psychometric properties of study quality assessment scales in meta-analysis: Rasch measurement model applied to the firefighter cancer literature

Abstract

Most existing quality scales have been developed with minimal attention to accepted standards of psychometric properties. Even for those that have been used widely in medical research, limited evidence exists supporting their psychometric properties. The focus of our current study is to address this gap by evaluating the psychometrics properties of two existing quality scales that are frequently used in cancer observational research: (1) Item Bank on Risk of Bias and Precision of Observational Studies developed by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International and (2) Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS). We used the Rasch measurement model to evaluate the psychometric properties of two quality scales based on the ratings of 49 studies that examine firefighters’ cancer incidence and mortality. Our study found that RTI and NOQAS have an acceptable item reliability. Two raters were consistent in their assessment, demonstrating high interrater reliability. We also found that NOQAS has more items that show better fit than the RTI scale. The NOQAS produced lower study quality scores with a smaller variation, suggesting that NOQAS items are much easier to rate. Our findings accord with a previous study, which conclude that the RTI scale was harder to apply and thus produces more heterogenous quality scores than NOQAS. Although both RTI and NOQAS showed high item reliability, NOQAS items are better fit to the underlying construct, showing higher validity of internal structure and stronger psychometric properties. The current study adds to our understanding of the psychometric properties of NOQAS and RTI scales for future meta-analyses of observational studies, particularly in the firefighter cancer literature.

Clinical role of the long non‑coding RNA, EGFR‑AS1, in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

“…Discrepancies between the two investigators (for example, whether a certain study should be included) were resolved by discussion and consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS) ( 17 ).…”