SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Spor Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

Evaluation of Research Quality in Systematic Reviews Specific to Exercise and Sport Sciences: Adapting TESTEX Criteria to Turkish

Egzersiz ve Spor Bilimlerine Özgü Sistematik Derlemelerde Araştırma Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi: TESTEX Kriterlerinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Hüseyin Şahin Uysal(Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi)0000-0002-3595-8812
Ahmet Yavuz Karafil(MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1910-4673
Dr. Oğuzhan Dalkıran(MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9688-4573
Seda Nur Uysal(MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2267-114X
Sezgin Korkmaz(MEHMET AKİF ERSOY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2001-2741
Pages
641–656
Publication Date
2023-10-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Study results showed that the TESTEX scale was adapted to Turkish as valid and reliable.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to adapt the TESTEX scale, which is preferred by researchers who make systematic reviews in the field of exercise and sports, into Turkish in a valid and reliable way.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The following procedures were carried out for the adaptation of the TESTEX scale to Turkish: (i) Consistency among independent language experts, (ii) Content validity of the TESTEX scale, (iii) Language validity of the TESTEX scale, (iv) Inter-rater reliability, (v) Inter-rater consistency.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Study results showed that the TESTEX scale was adapted to Turkish as valid and reliable.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sistematik derleme · Meta analiz · Spor bilimi

Abstract

This study aims to adapt the TESTEX scale, which is preferred by researchers who make systematic reviews in the field of exercise and sports, into Turkish in a valid and reliable way. The study was carried out according to the observational research design, which is one of the quantitative research methods, and the study group consisted of five independent language experts and five researchers. The following procedures were carried out for the adaptation of the TESTEX scale to Turkish: (i) Consistency among independent language experts, (ii) Content validity of the TESTEX scale, (iii) Language validity of the TESTEX scale, (iv) Inter-rater reliability, (v) Inter-rater consistency. For statistical analysis of these procedures, Kendall-W agreement coefficient, content validity ratio, content validity index (CVI), Pearson correlation coefficient (r), Fisher'z effect size index (z), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland Altman analyses were carried out. Study results showed that the TESTEX scale was adapted to Turkish as valid and reliable. In conclusion, the Turkish version of the TESTEX scale may be preferred to evaluate the methodological quality of research articles in systematic reviews. In addition, researchers can benefit from the quality criteria in the scale to improve the methodological quality of their studies.

Özet

En yüksek bilimsel kanıt seviyesine sahip olan sistematik derlemelerin kanıt kesinliği derlemelere dahil edilen bireysel çalışmaların kalitesi ile yakından ilişkilidir. Bireysel çalışmaların metodolojik kalitesini değerlendirmek için bilim alanlarına özgü kontrol listeleri kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, egzersiz ve spor alanında sistematik derleme yapan araştırmacıların tercih ettiği TESTEX ölçeğini Türkçe’ ye geçerli ve güvenilir olarak uyarlamaktır. Çalışma, nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden tarama modeline göre gerçekleştirilmiş olup, çalışma grubunu beş bağımsız dil profesyoneli ve beş araştırmacı oluşturmuştur. TESTEX ölçeğinin Türkçe’ ye uyarlanması için takip eden işlemler gerçekleştirilmiştir; (i) Bağımsız dil profesyonelleri arasındaki uyum, (ii) TESTEX ölçeğinin kapsam geçerliği, (iii) TESTEX ölçeğinin dil geçerliği, (iv) Değerlendiriciler arası güvenirlik, (v) Değerlendiriciler arası uyum. Bu işlemlerin istatistiksel analizi için Kendall-W uyuşum katsayısı, kapsam geçerlik oranı, kapsam geçerlik indeksi (KGİ), pearson korelasyon katsayısı (r), Fisher'z etki büyüklüğü indeksi (z), sınıf için korelasyon katsayısı (ICC) ve Bland Altman analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın istatistiksel analizleri için R 4.1.0 (R Core Team) yazılım aracı tercih edilirken, tüm analizlerde istatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi α = 0.05 olarak kabul edilmiştir. Çalışma sonuçları, TESTEX ölçeğinin Türkçe’ ye geçerli (KGİ = 1; Kendall’s W = 0.26; p = 0.19 > 0.05; r = 0.99, %95 GA = 0.98 – 0.99, z = 2.64, p = 0.00) ve güvenilir (ICC = 0.99, %95 GA = 0.98 – 1, p = 0.00; Ortalama yanlılık = -0.40 ± 1.17) olarak uyarlandığını göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, sistematik derlemelerde bireysel çalışmaların metodolojik kalitesini değerlendirmek için TESTEX ölçeğinin Türkçe formu tercih edilebilir. Ayrıca araştırmacılar, bireysel çalışmalarının metodolojik kalitesini artırmak için ölçekte yer alan kalite kriterlerinden faydalanabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uysal, H. Ş., Karafil, A. Y., Dalkıran, D. O., Uysal, S. N., Korkmaz, S. (2023). Evaluation of Research Quality in Systematic Reviews Specific to Exercise and Sport Sciences: Adapting TESTEX Criteria to Turkish. Spor Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 641–656. https://doi.org/10.25307/jssr.1301934

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Abt, G., Jobson, S., Morin, J. B., Passfield, L., Sampaio, J., Sunderland, C., & Twist, C. (2022). Raising the bar in sports performance research. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40(2), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.2024334
  2. Acosta, S., Garza, T., Hsu, H. Y., & Goodson, P. (2020). Assessing quality in systematic literature reviews: A study of novice rater training. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020939530
  3. Alferes, V. R. (2012). Methods of randomization in experimental design. SAGE Publications.
  4. Berger, V. W., Bour, L. J., Carter, K., Chipman, J. J., Everett, C. C., Heussen, N., Hewitt, C., Hilgers, R. D., Luo, Y. A., Renteria, J., Ryeznik, Y., Sverdlov, O., Uschner, D., & Beckman, R. A. (2021). A roadmap to using randomization in clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12874-021-01303-Z/TABLES/3
  5. Bishop, D. (2008). An applied research model for the sport sciences. Sports Medicine, 38(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200838030-00005
  6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2022). Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri (33. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  7. Cuthbert, M., Ripley, N., Mcmahon, J. J., Evans, M., Haff, · G Gregory, & Comfort, P. (2020). The effect of nordic hamstring exercise intervention volume on eccentric strength and muscle architecture adaptations: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Sports Medicine, 50, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01178-7
  8. Çalışkan, T., & Çınar, S. (2012). Akran desteği: Geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması. Marmara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(1), 1-7.
  9. Davies, T. B., Tran, D. L., Hogan, C. M., Gregory Haff, G., & Latella, C. (2021). Chronic effects of altering resistance training set configurations Using Cluster Sets: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 51, 707–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01408-3
  10. de Boer, M. R., Waterlander, W. E., Kuijper, L. D. J., Steenhuis, I. H. M., & Twisk, J. W. R. (2015). Testing for baseline differences in randomized controlled trials: An unhealthy research behavior that is hard to eradicate. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12966-015-0162-Z/TABLES/1
  11. Elkins, M. R. (2015). Assessing baseline comparability in randomised trials. Journal of Physiotherapy, 61(4), 228–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPHYS.2015.07.005
  12. Haff, G. G., Bishop, D., Hoffman, J., Kawamori, N., Newton, R. U., Sands, B., & Stone, M. (2010). Sport Science. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32(2), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0B013E3181D59C74
  13. Hoffman, J. R. (2002). Physiological aspects of sport training and performance. Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.
  14. Hür, G., Zengi̇n, H., Karakaya Suzan, Ö., Kolukisa, T., Eroğlu, A., & Çinar, N. (2022). Joanna Brıggs Enstitüsü (JBE) randomize kontrollü çalışmalar için kalite değerlendirme aracının Türkçe’ye uyarlaması. Sağlık Bilimlerinde İleri Araştırmalar Dergisi,5(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.26650/JARHS2022-1100929
  15. Hopkins, W.G., Marshall, S.W., Batterham, A.M., & Hanin, J. (2009). Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine Science Sports, 41(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278
  16. Juhl, C. B., & Lund, H. (2018). Do we really need another systematic review?. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(22), 1408–1409. https://doi.org/10.1136/BJSPORTS-2018-099832
  17. Kahan, B. C., Rehal, S., & Cro, S. (2015). Risk of selection bias in randomised trials. Trials, 16(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13063-015-0920-X/TABLES/3
  18. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCM.2016.02.012
  19. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1744-6570.1975.TB01393.X
  20. Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003). Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy, 83(8), 713-721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00574.x
  21. Marusteri, M., & Bacarea, V. (2010). Comparing groups for statistical differences: How to choose the right statistical test? Biochemia Medica, 20(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2010.004
  22. McCoy, C. E. (2017). Understanding the Intention-to-treat Principle in Randomized Controlled Trials. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(6), 1075. https://doi.org/10.5811/WESTJEM.2017.8.35985
  23. Meel, P., & Vishwakarma, D. K. (2020). Fake news, rumor, information pollution in social media and web: A contemporary survey of state-of-the-arts, challenges and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications, 153, 112986. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2019.112986
  24. Murad, M. H., Asi, N., Alsawas, M., & Alahdab, F. (2016). New evidence pyramid. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 21(4), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1136/EBMED-2016-110401
  25. O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
  26. Rico-González, M., Pino-Ortega, J., Clemente, F. M., & Arcos, A. L. (2021). Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science. Biology of Sport, 39(2), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.5114/BIOLSPORT.2022.106386
  27. Sainani, K., & Chamari, K. (2022). Wish List for improving the quality of statistics in sport science. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 17(5), 673–674. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSPP.2022-0023
  28. Schulz, K. F. (2001). Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother? Evidence-Based Nursing, 4(1), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/EBN.4.1.4
  29. Sil, A., Kumar, P., Kumar, R., & Das, N. K. (2019). Selection of control, randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. Indian Dermatology Online Journal, 10(5), 605. https://doi.org/10.4103/IDOJ.IDOJ_149_19
  30. Smart, N. A., Waldron, M., Ismail, H., Giallauria, F., Vigorito, C., Cornelissen, V., & Dieberg, G. (2015). Validation of a new tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise training studies: TESTEX. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000020
  31. Su, Q., Cheng, G., & Huang, J. (2023). A review of research on eligibility criteria for clinical trials. Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10238-022-00975-1
  32. Tekindal, M., Özden, S. A., Gedik, T. Ege, A., Erim, F., & Tekindal, M. A. (2021). Nitel araştırmaların raporlanmasında standartlar: SRQR kontrol listesinin Türkçe uyarlaması. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 18(42), 5425–5443. https://doi.org/10.26466/OPUS.882177
  33. Vasconcelos, B. B., Protzen, G. V., Galliano, L. M., Kirk, C., & Del Vecchio, F. B. (2020). Effects of high-intensity interval training in combat sports: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34(3), 888–900. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003255
  34. Yeşilyurt, S., & Çapraz, C. (2018). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kullanılan kapsam geçerliği için bir yol haritası. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 20(1), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.17556/ERZIEFD.297741
  35. Williams, G. D., Stinson, F. S., Lane, J. D., Tunson, S. L., & Dufour, M. C. (1999). What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 319(7211), 670–674. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.319.7211.670