Results for “Psychometrics”

PubMed2026

Patient-reported outcome measures for depression or anxiety symptoms in patients with cardiovascular disease: A COSMIN systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the measurement quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in this population remains unclear. This review aimed to evaluate the methodological quality, measurement properties, and certainty of evidence for depression and anxiety PROMs in adults with CVD and to inform instrument selection. METHODS: Following COSMIN and PRISMA guidance, four databases were searched from inception to February 2026. Studies assessing measurement properties of PROMs in adults with CVD were included. Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and certainty of evidence was graded using an adapted GRADE approach. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies assessing 38 PROMs were included, comprising 29 generic and 9 CVD-specific instruments. Six PROMs met COSMIN Category A criteria: Cardiac Depression Scale-Short Form, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Major Depression Inventory. Four instruments were classified as Category C because of insufficient structural validity. Content-validity evidence was largely indeterminate or of limited certainty. Only 24 studies used confirmatory factor analysis or Rasch analysis, and no study assessed measurement error or responsiveness. Cross-cultural validity evidence was scarce. CONCLUSIONS: Six PROMs met Category A criteria, but selection should remain purpose- and context-specific. Particular attention should be given to somatic symptom overlap and intended clinical use. Further validation should prioritize content validity, measurement invariance, responsiveness, measurement error, and clinimetric performance.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Critical insights on the application of the theory of planned behaviour to food handlers' food safety practices.

Foodborne diseases remain a significant public health concern, often linked to unsafe food-handling practices. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is widely used to predict and explain food safety behaviours, yet its application in this field has not been systematically and in-depth evaluated. This review evaluated how the TPB has been applied to study food handlers' behaviour, focusing on methodological approaches, use of the TACT (Target, Action, Context, and Time) framework, validity, elicitation studies, and reliability. Seventeen studies were included following a systematic search of four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, and Taylor & Francis Online). Data were extracted on behaviour definition, aim of study, main findings, use of indirect and direct TPB measures, use of elicitation studies, internal consistency, content validation, analytical methods used, and any extensions to the original TPB framework. Key elements related to adherence to core TPB principles and measurement practices were extracted using a Checklist. Most studies used direct measures of TPB constructs, and only a few reported procedures for content validation. Considerable variability was found in the reporting of key measurement and psychometric practices. Five studies fully applied the TACT framework, while nine incorporated additional factors such as knowledge and moral norms. Elicitation studies were conducted in five cases where indirect measures were employed. Analytical approaches were mainly based on multiple linear regression, with limited use of more advanced techniques such as structural equation modeling. Twelve studies reported internal consistency results. Overall, the review highlights opportunities to strengthen methodological practices in future TPB research on food safety. Greater attention to conducting and reporting content validation, full application of the TACT framework, reporting of internal consistency, and consistent inclusion of elicitation studies when using indirect measures may enhance transparency, reinforcing the credibility and trustworthiness of research findings. A major methodological limitation of this review was that screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer and no formal quality or risk-of-bias assessment of the included studies was performed. Despite these limitations, the findings provide practical guidance for the development and validation of TPB-based questionnaires and may support more robust food safety research, interventions, and policy initiatives aimed at improving food handlers' practices.

Humans↗