ArticleFrontiers in psychology2016
The Development of a Checklist to Enhance Methodological Quality in Intervention Programs.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Parenting Programs for Southeast Asian Families.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2025Pooled it
- What is fidelity? A systematic review of provider fidelity and its associations with engagement and outcomes in parenting programs.Clinical psychology review · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of Physical, Technical, and Tactical Analysis in the Australian Football League: A Systematic Review.Sports medicine - open · 2022Pooled it
- Parenting Interventions for Refugees and Forcibly Displaced Families: A Systematic Review.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2022Pooled it
- The link between social communication and mental health from childhood to young adulthood: A systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of a Ketogenic Diet on the Nutritional Parameters of Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of diagnostic tools for peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer-staging laparoscopy and its alternatives.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- Association between motor and math skills in preschool children with typical development: Systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- The Methodological Quality Scale (MQS) for intervention programs: validity evidence.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Predictive Factors of Mental Health in Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence in Chile.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2022Article
- Rethinking the Multidimensionality of Growth Mindset Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Framework Proposal.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Music and neuroscience research for mental health, cognition, and development: Ways forward.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A pilot study for symptom assessment and diagnosis in children in Chile.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- A Training Intervention through a 360° Multisource Feedback Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Work Climate Scale in Emergency Services: Abridged Version.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Couples extrinsic emotion regulation questionnaire: Psychometric validation in a Chilean population.PloS one · 2021Article
- Having the Cake and Eating It Too: First-Order, Second-Order and Bifactor Representations of Work Engagement.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Gender-Based Performance in Mathematical Facts and Calculations in Two Elementary School Samples From Chile and Spain: An Exploratory Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Spanish Adaptation of the Inventory Brief Child Abuse Potential and the Protective Factors Survey.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The methodological quality of primary studies is an important issue when performing meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Nevertheless, there are no clear criteria for how methodological quality should be analyzed. Controversies emerge when considering the various theoretical and empirical definitions, especially in relation to three interrelated problems: the lack of representativeness, utility, and feasibility. In this article, we (a) systematize and summarize the available literature about methodological quality in primary studies; (b) propose a specific, parsimonious, 12-items checklist to empirically define the methodological quality of primary studies based on a content validity study; and (c) present an inter-coder reliability study for the resulting 12-items. This paper provides a precise and rigorous description of the development of this checklist, highlighting the clearly specified criteria for the inclusion of items and a substantial inter-coder agreement in the different items. Rather than simply proposing another checklist, however, it then argues that the list constitutes an assessment tool with respect to the representativeness, utility, and feasibility of the most frequent methodological quality items in the literature, one that provides practitioners and researchers with clear criteria for choosing items that may be adequate to their needs. We propose individual methodological features as indicators of quality, arguing that these need to be taken into account when designing, implementing, or evaluating an intervention program. This enhances methodological quality of intervention programs and fosters the cumulative knowledge based on meta-analyses of these interventions. Future development of the checklist is discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.