ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2021
How to identify the most suitable questionnaires and rating scales for your clinical practice or research?
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Determinants of Burnout among Teachers: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Psychometric validity of the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure and the Burnout Assessment Tool: a systematic review.Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju · 2022Pooled it
- How Do Open-Ended Interview and Closed-Ended Questionnaire Responses Compare? A Matched Mixed-Methods Study Examining Treatment Attitudes of Patients With Meniscal Tear and Persistent Pain.ACR open rheumatology · 2026Article
- Article
- Measuring Attitudes Toward Plastics: A Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Patient Evaluation Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Prompt Framework for Extracting Scale-Related Knowledge Entities from Chinese Medical Literature: Development and Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Transport Personnel Health Cohort (TRAPHEAC): study protocol and methodological considerations.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2025Article
- In response to: Letter to the Editor regarding "The role of nutritional supplement on post-stroke fatigue: a pilot randomized controlled trial".The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2024Article
- How to identify the most suitable questionnaires and rating scales for your clinical practice or research?International journal of clinical practice · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelection of the most suitable instrument for a health outcome or exposure assessment is challenging, as there are many different instruments and their versions, most with unknown validity.
aimsTo develop guidelines facilitating the search for the most suitable instrument. MATERIALS AND
methodsBased on our experience, we formalised a five-step process. The first step is the search for systematic reviews of available instruments validity in COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), or conventional (eg, Medline and Web of Science) databases. If there is no systematic review, the clinician should look for original validation studies and assess them critically. We presented two alternatives of this assessment: qualitative using COSMIN and quantitative using our methodological framework. The latter helps to decide upon the instrument validity completeness and interpret the statistical results from original studies objectively. This process was then transformed into guidelines, which were tested by three external clinicians to select the most appropriate instrument to measure depression, occupational stress and daily fatigue.
resultsThe guidelines were proved to facilitate the instrument search and selection, practical and time-saving. DISCUSSION: The guidelines assessment highlighted that clinicians should check whether the instrument that they are looking for was developed for screening or diagnosing purposes, whether it can be self-administered or not, and for which setting it was validated (academic vs clinical).
conclusionThese guidelines facilitate the objective choice of the most suitable instrument in clinical practice by making the search simple, systematic and time-effective.
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.