A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain

S L Yates, S Morley, C Eccleston, A C D Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

99 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper reports the development of a scale for assessing the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials for psychological treatments. The Delphi method was used in which a panel of 15-12 experts generated statements relating to treatment and design components of trials. After three rounds, statements with high consensus agreement were reviewed by a second expert panel and rewritten as a scale. Evidence to support the reliability and validity of the scale is reported. Three expert and five novice raters assessed sets of 31 and 25 published trials to establish scale reliability (ICC ranges from 0.91 to 0.41 for experts and novices, respectively) and item reliability (Kappa and inter-rater agreement). The total scale score discriminated between trials globally judged as good and poor by experts, and trial quality was shown to be a function of year of publication. Uses for the scale are suggested.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)314-325
Number of pages12
JournalPain
Volume117
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Fingerprint

Psychology
Pain
Reproducibility of Results
Publications
Consensus
Randomized Controlled Trials
Therapeutics

Cite this

A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain. / Yates, S L; Morley, S; Eccleston, C; Williams, A C D.

In: Pain, Vol. 117, No. 3, 2005, p. 314-325.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yates, S L ; Morley, S ; Eccleston, C ; Williams, A C D. / A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain. In: Pain. 2005 ; Vol. 117, No. 3. pp. 314-325.
@article{56637a6d25c641cfb272d9daa4b1473d,
title = "A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain",
abstract = "This paper reports the development of a scale for assessing the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials for psychological treatments. The Delphi method was used in which a panel of 15-12 experts generated statements relating to treatment and design components of trials. After three rounds, statements with high consensus agreement were reviewed by a second expert panel and rewritten as a scale. Evidence to support the reliability and validity of the scale is reported. Three expert and five novice raters assessed sets of 31 and 25 published trials to establish scale reliability (ICC ranges from 0.91 to 0.41 for experts and novices, respectively) and item reliability (Kappa and inter-rater agreement). The total scale score discriminated between trials globally judged as good and poor by experts, and trial quality was shown to be a function of year of publication. Uses for the scale are suggested.",
author = "Yates, {S L} and S Morley and C Eccleston and Williams, {A C D}",
note = "ID number: ISI:000232675700009",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.018",
language = "English",
volume = "117",
pages = "314--325",
journal = "Pain",
issn = "0304-3959",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A scale for rating the quality of psychological trials for pain

AU - Yates, S L

AU - Morley, S

AU - Eccleston, C

AU - Williams, A C D

N1 - ID number: ISI:000232675700009

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - This paper reports the development of a scale for assessing the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials for psychological treatments. The Delphi method was used in which a panel of 15-12 experts generated statements relating to treatment and design components of trials. After three rounds, statements with high consensus agreement were reviewed by a second expert panel and rewritten as a scale. Evidence to support the reliability and validity of the scale is reported. Three expert and five novice raters assessed sets of 31 and 25 published trials to establish scale reliability (ICC ranges from 0.91 to 0.41 for experts and novices, respectively) and item reliability (Kappa and inter-rater agreement). The total scale score discriminated between trials globally judged as good and poor by experts, and trial quality was shown to be a function of year of publication. Uses for the scale are suggested.

AB - This paper reports the development of a scale for assessing the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials for psychological treatments. The Delphi method was used in which a panel of 15-12 experts generated statements relating to treatment and design components of trials. After three rounds, statements with high consensus agreement were reviewed by a second expert panel and rewritten as a scale. Evidence to support the reliability and validity of the scale is reported. Three expert and five novice raters assessed sets of 31 and 25 published trials to establish scale reliability (ICC ranges from 0.91 to 0.41 for experts and novices, respectively) and item reliability (Kappa and inter-rater agreement). The total scale score discriminated between trials globally judged as good and poor by experts, and trial quality was shown to be a function of year of publication. Uses for the scale are suggested.

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.018

U2 - 10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.018

DO - 10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.018

M3 - Article

VL - 117

SP - 314

EP - 325

JO - Pain

JF - Pain

SN - 0304-3959

IS - 3

ER -