Measurement properties of tools measuring mental health knowledge: a systematic review

BMC Psychiatry

Research Article

Jill Hayden¹  Patrick J. McGrath²  Stan Kutcher³  Yifeng Wei³ 

[1] Centre for Clinical Research, Room 403, 5790 University Avenue, B3H IV7, Halifax, NS, Canada;IWK Health Centre, Nova Scotia Health Authority and Dalhousie University, P.O Box 9700, 5850 University Ave., B3K 6R8, Halifax, NS, Canada;Sun Life Financial Chair in Adolescent Mental Health team, IWK Health Centre, P.O Box 9700, 5850 University Ave., B3K 6R8, Halifax, NS, Canada;

关键词: Mental health literacy;    Measurement tools;    Psychometrics;    Systematic review;    Mental health knowledge;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12888-016-1012-5

 received in 2016-04-22, accepted in 2016-08-18,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundMental health literacy has received great attention recently to improve mental health knowledge, decrease stigma and enhance help-seeking behaviors. We conducted a systematic review to critically appraise the qualities of studies evaluating the measurement properties of mental health knowledge tools and the quality of included measurement properties.MethodsWe searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and ERIC for studies addressing psychometrics of mental health knowledge tools and published in English. We applied the COSMIN checklist to assess the methodological quality of each study as “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, or “indeterminate”. We ranked the level of evidence of the overall quality of each measurement property across studies as “strong”, “moderate”, “limited”, “conflicting”, or “unknown”.ResultsWe identified 16 mental health knowledge tools in 17 studies, addressing reliability, validity, responsiveness or measurement errors. The methodological quality of included studies ranged from “poor” to “excellent” including 6 studies addressing the content validity, internal consistency or structural validity demonstrating “excellent” quality. We found strong evidence of the content validity or internal consistency of 6 tools; moderate evidence of the internal consistency, the content validity or the reliability of 8 tools; and limited evidence of the reliability, the structural validity, the criterion validity, or the construct validity of 12 tools.ConclusionsBoth the methodological qualities of included studies and the overall evidence of measurement properties are mixed. Based on the current evidence, we recommend that researchers consider using tools with measurement properties of strong or moderate evidence that also reached the threshold for positive ratings according to COSMIN checklist.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2016