The reliability of methodological ratings for speechBITE using the PEDro‐P scale

Elizabeth L. Murray · Emma Power · Leanne Togher · Patricia McCabe · Natalie Munro · Katherine Smith

49 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Health Sciences Research and Education Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: speechBITE (http://www.speechbite.com) is an online database established in order to help speech and language therapists gain faster access to relevant research that can used in clinical decision-making. In addition to containing more than 3000 journal references, the database also provides methodological ratings on the PEDro-P (an adapted version of the PEDro) scale to assist clinicians in identifying the scientific quality of randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized control trials (NRCTs). While reliability of the PEDro scale has been established by similar allied health databases, the reliability of the PEDro-P scale has yet to be reported. AIMS: To examine the reliability of PEDro-P scale ratings undertaken by raters on the speechBITE database and benchmark these results to the published reliability for the original PEDro scale. Both the total score (out of ten) as well as each of the 11 scale items were included in this analysis. METHODS & PROCEDURES: speechBITE's volunteer rater network of 17 members rated the first 100 RCTs and NRCTs on the website. The criterion and overall scores for these ratings were compared with previously published reliability studies using the PEDro scale. Intra-class correlations and per cent agreement measures were used to establish and benchmark reliability. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The speechBITE PEDro-P ratings ranged from fair to excellent for both the total score and for each of the 11 scale items. Furthermore, reliability was equal to that of other databases. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: speechBITE users can be confident of the reliability of ratings published on the website. Further analysis of differences between this study and previous PEDro scale reliability studies are discussed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.

References

2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?1998The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.1996Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 2003Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials 2000Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs

Cited by

2015Evidence-based intervention for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments: Child Talk – an exploratory mixed-methods study 2016A systematic review of treatment intensity in speech disorders 2015Une version franco-canadienne de la Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale : L'Échelle PEDro 2022Reproducibility in Small- N Treatment Research: A Tutorial Using Examples From Aphasiology

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.