학술논문
Measures of Workplace Inclusion: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Methodology
Review
Review
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Source
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. September 2020, Vol. 30 Issue 3, p420, 35 p.
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1053-0487
Abstract
Author(s): Mana Rezai [sup.1], Kendall Kolne [sup.1], Sunny Bui [sup.1] [sup.2], Sally Lindsay [sup.1] [sup.3] Author Affiliations: (1) grid.414294.e, 0000 0004 0572 4702, Bloorview Research Institute, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation [...]
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.
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.