Cargando…

Testing the Cambridge Quality Checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of the relationship between non-manipulated factors (e.g. low empathy) and offending are becoming more common, and it is important to consider the methodological quality of studies included in such reviews. AIMS: To assess aspects of the reliability and validity of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jolliffe, Darrick, Murray, Joseph, Farrington, David, Vannick, Claire
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23192977
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1837
_version_ 1782270603493900288
author Jolliffe, Darrick
Murray, Joseph
Farrington, David
Vannick, Claire
author_facet Jolliffe, Darrick
Murray, Joseph
Farrington, David
Vannick, Claire
author_sort Jolliffe, Darrick
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of the relationship between non-manipulated factors (e.g. low empathy) and offending are becoming more common, and it is important to consider the methodological quality of studies included in such reviews. AIMS: To assess aspects of the reliability and validity of the Cambridge Quality Checklists, a set of three measures for examining the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews of risk factors for offending. METHODS: All 60 studies in a systematic review of disrupted families and offending were coded on the CQC and codes compared with the effect sizes derived from the studies. RESULTS: Overall, the CQC was easy to score, and the relevant information was available in most studies. The scales had high inter-rater reliability. Only 13 studies scored high on the Checklist of Correlates, 18 scored highly on the Checklist of Risk Factors and none scored highly on the Checklist of Causal Risk Factors. Generally, studies that were of lower quality had higher effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The CQC could be a useful method of assessing the methodological quality of studies of risk factors for offending but might benefit from additional conceptual work, changes to the wording of some scales and additional levels for scoring. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3660786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36607862013-05-22 Testing the Cambridge Quality Checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime Jolliffe, Darrick Murray, Joseph Farrington, David Vannick, Claire Crim Behav Ment Health Original Articles BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of the relationship between non-manipulated factors (e.g. low empathy) and offending are becoming more common, and it is important to consider the methodological quality of studies included in such reviews. AIMS: To assess aspects of the reliability and validity of the Cambridge Quality Checklists, a set of three measures for examining the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews of risk factors for offending. METHODS: All 60 studies in a systematic review of disrupted families and offending were coded on the CQC and codes compared with the effect sizes derived from the studies. RESULTS: Overall, the CQC was easy to score, and the relevant information was available in most studies. The scales had high inter-rater reliability. Only 13 studies scored high on the Checklist of Correlates, 18 scored highly on the Checklist of Risk Factors and none scored highly on the Checklist of Causal Risk Factors. Generally, studies that were of lower quality had higher effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The CQC could be a useful method of assessing the methodological quality of studies of risk factors for offending but might benefit from additional conceptual work, changes to the wording of some scales and additional levels for scoring. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012-12 2012-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC3660786/ /pubmed/23192977 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1837 Text en Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Jolliffe, Darrick
Murray, Joseph
Farrington, David
Vannick, Claire
Testing the Cambridge Quality Checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime
title Testing the Cambridge Quality Checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime
title_full Testing the Cambridge Quality Checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime
title_fullStr Testing the Cambridge Quality Checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime
title_full_unstemmed Testing the Cambridge Quality Checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime
title_short Testing the Cambridge Quality Checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime
title_sort testing the cambridge quality checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23192977
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1837
work_keys_str_mv AT jolliffedarrick testingthecambridgequalitychecklistsonareviewofdisruptedfamiliesandcrime
AT murrayjoseph testingthecambridgequalitychecklistsonareviewofdisruptedfamiliesandcrime
AT farringtondavid testingthecambridgequalitychecklistsonareviewofdisruptedfamiliesandcrime
AT vannickclaire testingthecambridgequalitychecklistsonareviewofdisruptedfamiliesandcrime