Measures of Workplace Inclusion: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Methodology.
Purpose To systematically assess the measurement properties and the quality of the evidence for measures of inclusion or exclusion at work. Methods Comprehensive searches of five electronic databases were conducted up to February 2019. Eligible studies aimed to develop a measure of workplace inclusi...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Vol. 30; no. 3; pp. 420 - 455 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Sep2020
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=144951458&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 144951458 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 10530487 JOR jtl: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation issn: 10530487 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2020 vid: 30 iid: 3 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 144951458 144182470 144951458 144951458 10.1007/s10926-020-09872-4 144951458 ppf: 420 ppct: 35 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Measures of Workplace Inclusion: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Methodology. aug: au: Rezai, Mana Kolne, Kendall Bui, Sunny Lindsay, Sally affil: Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada sug: subj: Work Environment Social Inclusion Evaluation Social Isolation Evaluation Psychometrics Human Systematic Review Checklists Work Descriptive Statistics Funding Source Medline Embase Psycinfo CINAHL Database Reliability and Validity Scales Questionnaires ab: Purpose To systematically assess the measurement properties and the quality of the evidence for measures of inclusion or exclusion at work. Methods Comprehensive searches of five electronic databases were conducted up to February 2019. Eligible studies aimed to develop a measure of workplace inclusion or exclusion or assessed at least one measurement property. Pairs of reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias. Methodological quality was appraised with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. A best-evidence synthesis approach guided the analysis. For each measurement property, evidence quality was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low and results were classified as sufficient, insufficient, or inconsistent. Results The titles and abstracts of 14,380 articles were screened, with 151 full-text articles reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 27 studies were identified, 10 of which were measure development studies. Included measures were the Workplace Ostracism Scale, Ostracism Interventionary Behaviour Scale, Workplace Culture Survey, Workplace Exclusion Scale, Perceived Group Inclusion Scale, Organizational Cultural Intelligence Scale, Inclusion–Exclusion Scale, Climate for Inclusion Scale, Workplace Social Inclusion Scale and the Inclusion-Diversity Scale. Most workplace inclusion instruments were not examined for some form of validity or reliability and evidence for responsiveness was absent. The quality of the evidence for content validity was low for 30% of studies and very low for 70% of studies. Conclusion Future research should focus on comprehensive evaluations of the psychometric properties of existing measures, with an emphasis on content validity, measurement error, reliability and responsiveness. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|