SynthesisChild: care, health and development2026
Psychometric Measures of Instruments of Occupational Performance in Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Child: care, health and development, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundBecause instruments are routinely employed by health professionals, it is essential to establish their psychometric quality, particularly regarding validity evidence.
objectiveThe study aimed to analyse the psychometric measures used in studies of validity evidence of instruments for assessing the occupational performance of children with developmental coordination disorder.
methodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines using five electronic databases.
resultsTwenty-four articles were included, with 17 different scales. Discriminant validation was the most reported psychometric measure, with half of the studies reporting using parametric and nonparametric analyses. Among the psychometric methods verified in the studies, reliability analysis was the most prevalent, using Cronbach's alpha and test-retest; one study used ordinal alpha. One third of the studies used exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis for internal structure.
conclusionThe validation techniques used varied among the studies found, and these were sometimes incomplete and confusing, as well as an insignificant result in relation to the use of more contemporary concepts for the types of validity evidence. Factor analysis for internal structure was rarely reported in the studies; however, it stands out for being a more robust technique for this type of validation.
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.