IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0284469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An examination of psychometric properties of study quality assessment scales in meta-analysis: Rasch measurement model applied to the firefighter cancer literature

Author

Listed:
  • Soyeon Ahn
  • Paulo S Pinheiro
  • Laura A McClure
  • Diana R Hernandez
  • Alberto J Caban-Martinez
  • David J Lee

Abstract

Most existing quality scales have been developed with minimal attention to accepted standards of psychometric properties. Even for those that have been used widely in medical research, limited evidence exists supporting their psychometric properties. The focus of our current study is to address this gap by evaluating the psychometrics properties of two existing quality scales that are frequently used in cancer observational research: (1) Item Bank on Risk of Bias and Precision of Observational Studies developed by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International and (2) Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS). We used the Rasch measurement model to evaluate the psychometric properties of two quality scales based on the ratings of 49 studies that examine firefighters’ cancer incidence and mortality. Our study found that RTI and NOQAS have an acceptable item reliability. Two raters were consistent in their assessment, demonstrating high interrater reliability. We also found that NOQAS has more items that show better fit than the RTI scale. The NOQAS produced lower study quality scores with a smaller variation, suggesting that NOQAS items are much easier to rate. Our findings accord with a previous study, which conclude that the RTI scale was harder to apply and thus produces more heterogenous quality scores than NOQAS. Although both RTI and NOQAS showed high item reliability, NOQAS items are better fit to the underlying construct, showing higher validity of internal structure and stronger psychometric properties. The current study adds to our understanding of the psychometric properties of NOQAS and RTI scales for future meta-analyses of observational studies, particularly in the firefighter cancer literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Soyeon Ahn & Paulo S Pinheiro & Laura A McClure & Diana R Hernandez & Alberto J Caban-Martinez & David J Lee, 2023. "An examination of psychometric properties of study quality assessment scales in meta-analysis: Rasch measurement model applied to the firefighter cancer literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0284469
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284469
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284469
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284469&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0284469?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Soyeon Ahn & Betsy Jane Becker, 2011. "Incorporating Quality Scores in Meta-Analysis," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 36(5), pages 555-585, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Howard, Peter H. & Sterner, Thomas, 2022. "Between Two Worlds: Methodological and Subjective Differences in Climate Impact Meta-Analyses," RFF Working Paper Series 22-10, Resources for the Future.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0284469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.