Athlete-Reported Outcome Measures for Monitoring Training Responses: A Systematic Review of Risk of Bias and Measurement Property Quality According to the COSMIN Guidelines.

Jeffries, AC; Wallace, L; Coutts, AJ; McLaren, SJ; McCall, A; Impellizzeri, FM

Athlete-Reported Outcome Measures for Monitoring Training Responses: A Systematic Review of Risk of Bias and Measurement Property Quality According to the COSMIN Guidelines.

Jeffries, AC Wallace, L Coutts, AJ McLaren, SJ McCall, A Impellizzeri, FM

Permalink

Publisher:: HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International journal of sports physiology and performance, 2020, 15, (9), pp. 1-13
Issue Date:: 2020-09-21

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Jeffries AROM SR 2020.pdf		562.26 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Jeffries, AC
dc.contributor.author	Wallace, L
dc.contributor.author	Coutts, AJ
dc.contributor.author	McLaren, SJ
dc.contributor.author	McCall, A
dc.contributor.author	Impellizzeri, FM
dc.date.accessioned	2021-02-24T03:57:39Z
dc.date.available	2020-07-29
dc.date.available	2021-02-24T03:57:39Z
dc.date.issued	2020-09-21
dc.identifier.citation	International journal of sports physiology and performance, 2020, 15, (9), pp. 1-13
dc.identifier.issn	1555-0265
dc.identifier.issn	1555-0273
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/146386
dc.description.abstract	<h4>Background</h4>Athlete-reported outcome measures (AROMs) are frequently used in research and practice but no studies have examined their psychometric properties.<h4>Objectives</h4>Part 1-identify the most commonly used AROMs in sport for monitoring training responses; part 2-assess risk of bias, measurement properties, and level of evidence, based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.<h4>Study appraisal and synthesis methods</h4>Methodological quality of the studies, quality of measurement properties, and level of evidence were determined using the COSMIN checklist and criteria.<h4>Results</h4>Part 1-from 9446 articles screened for title and abstract, 310 out of 334 full texts were included; 53.9% of the AROMs contained multiple items, while 46.1% contained single items. Part 2-from 1895 articles screened for title and abstract, 71 were selected. Most measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs were adequate, but content validity and measurement error were inadequate. With the exclusion of 2 studies examining reliability and responsiveness, no validity studies were found for single items.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs derived from psychometrics were acceptable (with the exclusion of content validity and measurement error). The single-item AROMs most frequently used in sport science have not been validated. Additionally, nonvalidated modified versions of the originally nonvalidated items are common. Until proper validation studies are completed, all conclusions based on these AROMs are questionable. Established reference methods, such as those of clinimetrics, should be used to develop and assess the validity of AROMs.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
dc.relation.ispartof	International journal of sports physiology and performance
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1123/ijspp.2020-0386
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 1116 Medical Physiology, 1701 Psychology
dc.subject.classification	Sport Sciences
dc.title	Athlete-Reported Outcome Measures for Monitoring Training Responses: A Systematic Review of Risk of Bias and Measurement Property Quality According to the COSMIN Guidelines.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	15
utslib.location.activity	United States
utslib.for	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences
utslib.for	1116 Medical Physiology
utslib.for	1701 Psychology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHT - Health Technologies
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2021-02-24T03:57:37Z
pubs.issue	9
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	15
utslib.citation.issue	9

Abstract:

Background

Athlete-reported outcome measures (AROMs) are frequently used in research and practice but no studies have examined their psychometric properties.

Objectives

Part 1-identify the most commonly used AROMs in sport for monitoring training responses; part 2-assess risk of bias, measurement properties, and level of evidence, based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

Methodological quality of the studies, quality of measurement properties, and level of evidence were determined using the COSMIN checklist and criteria.

Results

Part 1-from 9446 articles screened for title and abstract, 310 out of 334 full texts were included; 53.9% of the AROMs contained multiple items, while 46.1% contained single items. Part 2-from 1895 articles screened for title and abstract, 71 were selected. Most measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs were adequate, but content validity and measurement error were inadequate. With the exclusion of 2 studies examining reliability and responsiveness, no validity studies were found for single items.

Conclusions

The measurement properties of multiple-item AROMs derived from psychometrics were acceptable (with the exclusion of content validity and measurement error). The single-item AROMs most frequently used in sport science have not been validated. Additionally, nonvalidated modified versions of the originally nonvalidated items are common. Until proper validation studies are completed, all conclusions based on these AROMs are questionable. Established reference methods, such as those of clinimetrics, should be used to develop and assess the validity of AROMs.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/146386