The validation of screening tests: meet the new screen same as the old screen?
- PMID: 22203270
- DOI: 10.1007/s10899-011-9285-6
The validation of screening tests: meet the new screen same as the old screen?
Abstract
The focus of this report is to examine the process of validation of new screening tests designed to detect the problem gambler in research and practice settings. A hierarchical or phases of evaluation model is presented as a conceptual framework to describe the basic features of the validation process and its implications for application and interpretation of test results. The report describes a number of threats to validity in the form of sources of unintended bias that when unrecognized may lead to incorrect interpretations of study results and the drawing of incorrect conclusions about the usefulness of the new screening tests. Examples drawn from the gambling literature on problem gambling are used to illustrate some of the more important concepts including spectrum bias and clinical variation in test accuracy. The concept of zones of severity and the bias inherent in selecting criterion thresholds are reviewed. A definition of reference or study gold standard is provided. The use of 2-stage designs to establish validity by efficiently using reference standards to determine indices of accuracy and prevalence is recommended.
Similar articles
-
Test Performance Variation Between Settings and Populations.J Gambl Stud. 2018 Dec;34(4):1085-1108. doi: 10.1007/s10899-017-9728-9. J Gambl Stud. 2018. PMID: 29119356
-
Setting criterion thresholds for estimating prevalence: what is being validated?J Gambl Stud. 2014 Sep;30(3):577-607. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9380-y. J Gambl Stud. 2014. PMID: 23526052
-
Comparative Test Evaluation: Methods and Challenges.J Gambl Stud. 2018 Dec;34(4):1109-1138. doi: 10.1007/s10899-018-9745-3. J Gambl Stud. 2018. PMID: 29368061
-
[Psychometric characteristics of questionnaires designed to assess the knowledge, perceptions and practices of health care professionals with regards to alcoholic patients].Encephale. 2004 Sep-Oct;30(5):437-46. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(04)95458-9. Encephale. 2004. PMID: 15627048 Review. French.
-
A systematic review evaluating screening instruments for gambling disorder finds lack of adequate evidence.J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;120:86-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.022. Epub 2020 Jan 7. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020. PMID: 31917356
Cited by
-
Test Performance Variation Between Settings and Populations.J Gambl Stud. 2018 Dec;34(4):1085-1108. doi: 10.1007/s10899-017-9728-9. J Gambl Stud. 2018. PMID: 29119356
-
Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV.J Gambl Stud. 2016 Sep;32(3):905-22. doi: 10.1007/s10899-015-9573-7. J Gambl Stud. 2016. PMID: 26408026 Free PMC article.
-
Setting criterion thresholds for estimating prevalence: what is being validated?J Gambl Stud. 2014 Sep;30(3):577-607. doi: 10.1007/s10899-013-9380-y. J Gambl Stud. 2014. PMID: 23526052
-
Comparative Test Evaluation: Methods and Challenges.J Gambl Stud. 2018 Dec;34(4):1109-1138. doi: 10.1007/s10899-018-9745-3. J Gambl Stud. 2018. PMID: 29368061
-
Decoding Problem Gamblers' Signals: A Decision Model for Casino Enterprises.J Gambl Stud. 2015 Dec;31(4):1671-93. doi: 10.1007/s10899-014-9478-x. J Gambl Stud. 2015. PMID: 24938732
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical