| 1. |
- Aaby, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
Does the Danish version of the Spinal Cord Lesion-related Coping Strategies Questionnaire measure what we think it measures? : A triangulated mixed-methods validation approach
- 2022
-
In: Spinal Cord. - : SPRINGERNATURE. - 1362-4393 .- 1476-5624.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Study design: Triangulated mixed-methods validation study.Objectives: To validate the Danish version of the Spinal Cord Lesion-related Coping Strategies Questionnaire (SCL-CSQ).Setting: Community in Denmark.Methods: Participants were invited via a patient organization and its specialized hospital. Eligibility criteria were having a spinal cord injury (SCI), being 18 years or older, and able to understand and respond in Danish. Quantitative data were collected to determine internal consistency and criterion validity of the three subscales of SCL-CSQ, i.e., acceptance, fighting spirit, and social reliance. The Three-Step Test-Interview approach was employed to determine whether items measured what they were intended to measure (i.e., construct validity based on response processes).Results: The quantitative sample consisted of 107 participants, and the interview sample comprised 11 participants. The acceptance and fighting spirit subscales showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.72 and 0.76 respectively) and satisfactory criterion validity (expected correlations with quality of life and depression). The social reliance subscale showed inadequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.58) and criterion validity. All fighting spirit items and all but one acceptance items were interpreted congruently by most participants. Conversely, two social reliance items were only interpreted congruently by 9 and 27%.Conclusion: The acceptance and fighting spirit subscales of the Danish version of the SCL-CSQ showed good psychometric properties, while the social reliance subscale showed serious issues and should be revised. Researchers and clinicians are urged to reflect on these findings when revising the SCL-CSQ or adapting it to other languages, cultural contexts, and rehabilitation settings.
|
|
| 2. |
- Chen, Kenneth, et al.
(author)
-
Recommendations for Core Outcome Domain Set for Whiplash Associated Disorders (CATWAD)
- 2019
-
In: Clinical Journal of Pain. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0749-8047 .- 1536-5409. ; 35:9, s. 727-736
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of treatments for Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD) hinders effective data pooling and conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of tested treatments. The aim of this study was to provide recommendations for core outcome domains that should be included in clinical trials of WAD. Methods: A three-step process was used. 1) A list of potential core outcome domains were identified from the published literature; 2) Researchers, health care providers, patients and insurance personnel participated and rated the importance of each domain via a three round Delphi survey. A priori criteria for consensus were established; 3) Experts comprising researchers, health care providers and a consumer representative participated in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting that made final decisions on the recommended core outcome domains. Results: The literature search identified 63 potential core domains. 223 participants were invited to partake in the Delphi surveys with 41.7% completing Round 1, 45.3% Round 2 and 51.4% Round 3. Eleven core domains met the criteria for inclusion across the entire sample. After the expert consensus meeting, six core domains were recommended: Physical Functioning, Perceived Recovery, Work and Social Functioning, Psychological Functioning, Quality of Life and Pain. Discussion: A 3-step process was used to recommend core outcome domains for clinical trials in WAD. Six core domains were recommended: Physical Functioning, Perceived Recovery, Work and Social Functioning, Psychological Functioning, Quality of Life and Pain. The next step is to determine the outcome measurement instruments for each of these domains.
|
|
