Insufficient overall rating and low quality of evidence for the psychometric properties of measurement instruments for abuse of older people (AOP) in community and institutional settings.
The review in brief
The psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments used in community and institutional settings were insufficient, and the evidence was low-quality. The evidence suggests that existing measurement instruments have poor validity and reliability.
What is this review about?
Various measurement instruments are used to estimate the prevalence of AOP in community and institutional settings; however, these estimates remain subject to uncertainty. Previous studies and systematic reviews investigating the prevalence of AOP have indicated that a potential factor contributing to this uncertainty could be the lack of a cross-culturally valid and reliable measurement instrument. Therefore, this review aims to comprehensively evaluate the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments in both community and institutional settings using the COSMIN guidelines. The summary of the overall rating and quality of evidence for the psychometric properties of each AOP measurement instrument are presented.
What is the aim of the review?
This Campbell systematic review examines the overall rating and quality of evidence of the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure AOP in community and institutional settings.
What are the main findings of this review?
What studies are included?
This review included studies that evaluated the psychometric properties of the instruments used to measure AOP in community and institutional settings. The review synthesises the evidence from 114 studies across 68 instruments administered to older adults, caregivers or third persons (e.g., nursing staff, health care providers). Studies included in this review were published between 1986 and 2023. Only 21 studies across 20 instruments reported on instrument development, and 34 studies reported the content validity of the 25 instruments. Internal consistency was the most frequently assessed psychometric property among the included instruments (89 studies, 56 instruments), followed by structural validity (42 studies, 28 instruments) and hypothesis testing/construct validity (32 studies, 20 instruments). A few instruments evaluated criterion validity (five studies, four instruments), measurement invariance (two studies, two instruments) and cross-cultural validity (one study, one instrument). Measurement errors and responsiveness were not evaluated in any of the studies. Most studies included in this review were conducted in high-income countries (69 studies). All the included studies have significant methodological weaknesses.
Are the psychometric properties of instruments used to measure the prevalence of AOP sufficient, and does high-quality evidence support them?
The low-quality evidence reported in this review demonstrated that most of the included instruments required additional evidence for their psychometric properties. This underscores the necessity for further research to rigorously evaluate the psychometric properties of existing measurement instruments using appropriate methodological approaches. Alternatively, developing a new measurement instrument and rigorously testing its psychometric properties may be imperative.
Are there any instruments recommended for AOP measurement?
There is no specific instrument we would recommend as a valid and reliable instrument to measure the prevalence of AOP in community and institutional settings.
What do the findings of this review mean?
This review reveals various instruments employed to measure AOP’s prevalence in community and institutional settings. However, the psychometric properties of these AOP measurement instruments have not received sufficient research attention. Evidence from existing studies indicates that the overall ratings for the evaluated psychometric properties are insufficient, supported by low-quality evidence. There is a clear need for well-structured research endeavours to comprehensively evaluate the psychometric properties of existing measurement instruments or develop and evaluate new instruments.
How up-to-date is this review?
The literature search was conducted up to May 2023.