ReviewAnesthesia and analgesia2019
Psychometrics: Trust, but Verify.
Review in Anesthesia and analgesia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- 'We're not going to start lifting stones now…': Stakeholder perspectives on the role of psychometric methods in outcome measurement.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
- Expanding worldviews on psychometric analysis of measurement tools in health professions education and research.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Review
- Time-effect relationship between spare-time exercise and sleep quality in middle school student by parallel latent growth and cross-lagged panel model.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Reproducibility between preschool and school-age Social Responsiveness Scale forms in the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes program.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2024Article
- Awareness of antibiotic resistance: a tool for measurement among human and animal health care professionals in LMICs and UMICs.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2023Article
- Psychometric evaluation of a quality of recovery score for the postanesthesia care unit-A preliminary validation study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Measuring what matters in healthcare: a practical guide to psychometric principles and instrument development.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Criterion Validity of Radon Test Values Reported by a Commercial Laboratory versus the Environmental Protection Agency.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Translation and psychometric properties of the Persian version of the position on nursing diagnosis scale.Nursing open · 2021Article
- A narrative review of data collection and analysis guidelines for comparative effectiveness research in chronic pain using patient-reported outcomes and electronic health records.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is a continued mandate for practicing evidence-based medicine and the prerequisite rigorous analysis of the comparative effectiveness of alternative treatments. There is also an increasing emphasis on delivering value-based health care. Both these high priorities and their related endeavors require correct information about the outcomes of care. Accurately measuring and confirming health care outcomes are thus likely now of even greater importance. The present basic statistical tutorial focuses on the germane topic of psychometrics. In its narrower sense, psychometrics is the science of evaluating the attributes of such psychological tests. However, in its broader sense, psychometrics is concerned with the objective measurement of the skills, knowledge, and abilities, as well as the subjective measurement of the interests, values, and attitudes of individuals-both patients and their clinicians. While psychometrics is principally the domain and content expertise of psychiatry, psychology, and social work, it is also very pertinent to patient care, education, and research in anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care, and pain medicine. A key step in selecting an existing or creating a new health-related assessment tool, scale, or survey is confirming or establishing the usefulness of the existing or new measure; this process conventionally involves assessing its reliability and its validity. Assessing reliability involves demonstrating that the measurement instrument generates consistent and hence reproducible results-in other words, whether the instrument produces the same results each time it is used in the same setting, with the same type of subjects. This includes interrater reliability, intrarater reliability, test-retest reliability, and internal reliability. Assessing validity is answering whether the instrument is actually measuring what it is intended to measure. This includes content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity. In evaluating a reported set of research data and its analyses, in a similar manner, it is important to assess the overall internal validity of the attendant study design and the external validity (generalizability) of its findings.
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.