Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review will critically appraise and summarize the measurement properties of instruments used to measure children's and adolescents' engagement during rehabilitation sessions in both clinical and research contexts. A secondary objective will be to assess the suitability of these instruments for clinical and research use. INTRODUCTION: Engagement in the therapeutic process is a critical mediator of therapeutic change during rehabilitation interventions. Yet there is little information on valid and reliable measures to holistically assess engagement during rehabilitation. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The populations of interest will be children and adolescents ≤21 years, with any diagnosis, in any setting, participating in occupational therapy, physical therapy, or speech-language therapy sessions. METHODS: This review will follow the Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. A search strategy will be developed for the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed through the COSMIN Risk of Bias tool and the COSMIN checklist. The measurement properties of the identified instruments will be graded using the modified GRADE approach and the COSMIN Criteria for Good Measurement Properties. Measurement properties (validity, reliability, and responsiveness), clinical feasibility (ease of administration, training needed, completion time, ease of score calculation, required equipment, and instrument cost), and interpretability (threshold values, floor and ceiling effects, percentage of missing items/scores, distribution of scores in the population, change scores for subgroups of children and adolescents, minimal important change or difference) for each instrument will be described. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420261277455.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Srinivasan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: