Background
Objectives
Methods
Protocol
Eligibility criteria
Criterion | Explanation |
---|---|
Study designs | Development, adaptation, translation, or evaluation of measurement properties of measurement instruments. Reviews will be initially included for citation tracking. |
Population | Patients with clinical manifestation of whiplash defined according to the Québec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: “Whiplash is an acceleration-deceleration mechanism of energy transfer to the neck. It may result from rear end or side-impact motor vehicle collisions, but can also occur during diving or other mishaps. The impact may result in bony or soft-tissue injuries (whiplash injury), which in turn may lead to a variety of clinical manifestations (Whiplash-Associated Disorders) [10].” For content/face validity studies: > 50% of the patients with whiplash when patients are involved. For all other studies: > 50% of the whole study population with whiplash OR separate sub-group analysis of patients with whiplash performed. |
Severity | Whiplash grade 0–IV according to the Quebec Task Force classification of whiplash-associated disorders [10]. |
Type of measure | Unrestricted, including but not limited to classifications, patient-reported outcome measures, prediction rules/models, performance-based measures and imaging. |
Construct | All health-related constructs addressed in the literature. |
Timing | Acute (≤ 3 months) and chronic (> 3 months) phase |
Settings | Acute care, rehabilitation, and community |
Language | Unrestricted |
Literature sources
Search strategy
Data management
Selection process
Data extraction
Assessment of risk of bias
Assessment of the quality of the outcome measurement instruments and overall quality of evidence
Measurement property | Rating | Criteria |
---|---|---|
Structural validity | + | CTT CFA: CFI or TLI or comparable measure > 0.95 OR RMSEA < 0.06 OR SRMR < 0.08a |
IRT/Rasch No violation of unidimensionalityb: CFI or TLI or comparable measure > 0.95 OR RMSEA < 0.06 OR SRMR < 0.08
AND
no violation of local independence: residual correlations among the items after controlling for the dominant factor < 0.20 OR Q3’s < 0.37
AND
no violation of monotonicity: adequate looking graphs OR item scalability > 0.30
AND
adequate model fit IRT: χ2 > 0.001 Rasch: infit and outfit mean squares ≥ 0.5 and ≤ 1.5 OR Z-standardized values > − 2 and < 2 | ||
? | CTT: not all information for ‘+’ reported IRT/Rasch: model fit not reported | |
− | Criteria for ‘+’ not met | |
Internal consistency | + | At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd AND Cronbach’s alpha(s) ≥ 0.70 for each unidimensional scale or subscalee |
? | Criteria for “At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd” not met | |
− | At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd AND Cronbach’s alpha(s) < 0.70 for each unidimensional scale or subscalee | |
Reliability | + | ICC or weighted Kappa ≥ 0.70 |
? | ICC or weighted Kappa not reported | |
− | ICC or weighted Kappa < 0.70 | |
Measurement error | + | SDC or LoA < MICd |
? | MIC not defined | |
− | SDC or LoA > MICd | |
Hypotheses testing for construct validity | + | The result is in accordance with the hypothesisf |
? | No hypothesis defined (by the review team) | |
− | The result is not in accordance with the hypothesisf | |
Cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance | + | No important differences found between group factors (such as age, gender, language) in multiple group factor analysis OR no important DIF for group factors (McFadden’s R2 < 0.02) |
? | No multiple group factor analysis OR DIF analysis performed | |
− | Important differences between group factors OR DIF was found | |
Criterion validity | + | Correlation with gold standard ≥ 0.70 OR AUC ≥ 0.70 |
? | Not all information for ‘+’ reported | |
− | Correlation with gold standard < 0.70 OR AUC < 0.70 | |
Responsiveness | + | The result is in accordance with the hypothesisf OR AUC ≥ 0.70 |
? | No hypothesis defined (by the review team) | |
− | The result is not in accordance with the hypothesisf OR AUC < 0.70 |
Quality of evidence | Definition |
---|---|
High | We are very confident that the true measurement property lies close to that of the estimate of the measurement property |
Moderate | We are moderately confident in the measurement property estimate: the true measurement property is likely to be close to the estimate of the measurement property, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different |
Low | Our confidence in the measurement property estimate is limited: the true measurement property may be substantially different from the estimate of the measurement property |
Very low | We have very little confidence in the measurement property estimate: the true measurement property is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the measurement property |