Systematic Review of the Properties of Tools Used to Measure Outcomes in Anxiety Intervention Studies for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Systematic Review of the Properties of Tools Used to Measure Outcomes in Anxiety Intervention Studies for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0085268
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-21
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
McConachie, Helen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wigham, Sarah;McConachie, Helen
背景：在评估自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)儿童的临床干预措施时，需要相关结果的证据。然而，到目前为止，由于使用的结果测量工具的多样性，以及对一些测量性质的缺乏了解，关于最有效的干预措施的结论是妥协的。目的：本研究分两个阶段进行系统回顾，目的是确定用于评估对儿童期中期高功能自闭症儿童的焦虑干预的研究中所使用的工具，然后评估这些工具的适宜性和测量特性。方法：检索电子数据库，包括Medline、Cook Info、Embase和Cochrane数据库，并登记在儿童中期患有自闭症儿童的焦虑干预研究中。然后使用PubMed中的方法学过滤器来检索检验所用工具的测量特性的文章，并使用Cosmin检查表对论文的质量进行评估。结果：确定了10项干预研究，其中6项测量焦虑的工具和1项总体症状变化作为主要结果。另一个工具被包括在内，因为它被推荐为英国儿童心理健康服务的标准使用。对63篇关于工具性质的文献进行证据质量评估，并对每个工具的测量性质质量进行总结。结论：总体上，斯宾塞儿童焦虑量表、修订版儿童焦虑和抑郁量表以及儿童焦虑相关情绪障碍筛查量表三份问卷的测量性质是可靠的。至关重要的是，关于测量性质的文章几乎没有提供关于对变化的反应能力的证据，也没有提供关于使用工具评估患有自闭症儿童的干预措施的有效性的证据。
Background: Evidence about relevant outcomes is required in the evaluation of clinical interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). However, to date, the variety of outcome measurement tools being used, and lack of knowledge about the measurement properties of some, compromise conclusions regarding the most effective interventions.Objectives: This two-stage systematic review aimed to identify the tools used in studies evaluating interventions for anxiety for high-functioning children with ASD in middle childhood, and then to evaluate the tools for their appropriateness and measurement properties.Methods: Electronic databases including Medline, PsychInfo, Embase, and the Cochrane database and registers were searched for anxiety intervention studies for children with ASD in middle childhood. Articles examining the measurement properties of the tools used were then searched for using a methodological filter in PubMed, and the quality of the papers evaluated using the COSMIN checklist.Results: Ten intervention studies were identified in which six tools measuring anxiety and one of overall symptom change were used as primary outcomes. One further tool was included as it is recommended for standard use in UK children's mental health services. Sixty three articles on the properties of the tools were evaluated for the quality of evidence, and the quality of the measurement properties of each tool was summarised.Conclusions: Overall three questionnaires were found robust in their measurement properties, the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, its revised version - the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, and also the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders. Crucially the articles on measurement properties provided almost no evidence on responsiveness to change, nor on the validity of use of the tools for evaluation of interventions for children with ASD.