how to reference literature review apa 7

APA Style Citation Guide 7th Edition

• APA 7th Style Manual
• Books and eBooks
• Films, YouTube & More
• Government Sources
• Open Educational Resources
• AI or ChatGPT
• Social Media
• Art, Clip Art or Photos
• Authors: Missing or Anonymous
• Missing Reference Information
• Direct Quotes
• Reference Page Format
• Abstract and Keywords
• Annotated Bibliography
• Style and Grammar Guidlines
• Paper Formatting Tips
• Sample Paper
• APA 7th Style Chart
• Abbreviations
• Bias Free Language
• Capitalization
• DOIs and URLs

Literature Review

• Paraphrasing
• Preferred Spelling
• Quotation Marks
• APA 7th Tutorials
• APA 7th for Business
• APA 7th for Nursing
• Journal Accounting Reporting Standards (JARS)
• Presentations
• Dissertation & Thesis Resources
• Research Methods & Analysis Resources
• Statistics & Analysis Resources
• Publishing Resources
• CRAAP Criteria and Video
• Peer Review
• Zotero Reference Manager
• Literature Review via APA Style.org

"a narrative summary and evaluation of the findings or theories within a literature base.  Also known as 'narrative literature review'. "

• Key takeaways from the Psi Chi webinar So You Need to Write a Literature Review via APA Style.org

Examples of Literature Reviews

• Financial socialization: A decade in review (2021)
• The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the development of anxiety disorders - a literature review (2021)
• << Previous: Italics
• Next: Paraphrasing >>
• Last Updated: Mar 18, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.ggc.edu/apastyle_7th

ACAP LEARNING RESOURCES

Reference in APA 7

• Printable Guides & Sample Papers
• Headings & Page Order
• ACAP Presentation Requirements This link opens in a new window
• APA Style Guidelines, Blog & Socials
• Paraphrasing
• Time Stamps, Verbatim, Transcripts & Personal Comms
• Secondary Sources
• Tables & Figures
• Missing, Same, Repeated, Multiples, Parts & Abbreviations
• Reference List Elements
• Formatting the Reference List
• DOIs, URLs & Hyperlinks
• Missing Information
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Edited, Republished & Translated Books
• Reference Works
• Diagnostic Manuals (DSM & ICD)
• Religious & Ancient Works
• Newspaper Articles
• Conferences & Theses
• Reports, Policies & Grey Literature
• YouTube & Other Streaming
• Podcasts, TV & Radio
• Transcripts
• Artwork & Images
• Social Media
• Legislation
• Standards & Patents
• Unpublished Works
• Statistics, Tests & Data Sets
• Generative Artificial Intelligence

Reference Elements: Reports, Policies & Grey Literature

Author, a. a., & author, b. b. (date). title of report in italics (report no. #) [description]. publisher name. https://xxxxxxx.

Use to cite government, technical and research reports as well as codes of ethics, discussion papers, media releases etc. Where the author and publisher are the same, do not include the publisher. Use the most specific agency as the author and the parent agency as the publisher. Any parent agency not included in the author information is to be included as the publisher name. Describing the type of grey literature in square brackets whilst not necessary can still be helpful for the reader. See Section 10.4 of the APA Publication Manual for more examples.

• REFERENCE LIST EXAMPLES
• IN TEXT EXAMPLES

Government Reports

Department of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island Partnerships. (2016-2017). Annual bulletin for Queensland’s discrete Indigenous communities. Queensland Government. https://www.datsip.qld.gov.au/publications-governance-resources/discrete-indigenous-communities-key-indicator-reports

Crime and Corruption Commission Queensland. (2020, January). Corruption in focus: A guide to dealing with corrupt conduct in the Queensland public sector . https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/Docs/Publications/CCC/Corruption-in-focus-Guide-2020.pdf

Australian Productivity Commission. (2018, August 18). Rising inequality? A stocktake of the evidence [Research Paper]. https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/rising-inequality

Koleth, E. (2010, October 8). Multiculturalism: A review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas (Research paper no. 6 2010-11). Parliament of Australia. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1011/11rp06#_Toc275248115

Non-Government Organisations and Agencies

Phoenix Australia Centre for Posttraumatic Health. (2013). Australian guidelines for the treatment of acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. https://www.phoenixaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Phoenix-ASD-PTSD-Guidelines.pdf

Mission Australia. (2017). Aging and homelessness: Solutions to a growing problem  [Position statement]. https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/publications/position-statements/ageing-and-homelessness-solutions-to-a-growing-problem

Individual Authors

Kelly, J. F. (2012, March). Social cities . Grattan Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/137_report_social_cities_web.pdf

Dudgeon, P., Walker, R., Scrine, C., Shepherd, C., Calma, T., & Ring, I. (2014). Effective strategies to strengthen the mental health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people . Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/indigenous-australians/effective-strategies-to-strengthen-mental-health-w/contents/table-of-contents

National Environmental Science Program. (2019). I ndigenous collaboration for Australia’s environmental science [Brochure]. Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. https://www.environment.gov.au/science/nesp/publications/indigenous-collaboration-australia-environmental-science-brochure

Fact Sheets

Department of Health. (2020, April 01).  Coronavirus (COVID-19) – frequently asked questions [Fact sheet]. Australian Government.  https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/04/coronavirus-covid-19-frequently-asked-questions.pdf

Parenthetical Style

The report states "absences which were unexplained ranged from 6% for students at Northern Peninsula Area State College, to 87% for students at Aurukun State School" (Department of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island Partnerships, 2016-2017, p. 12).

Balancing traffic, pedestrians and commercial interests can be challenging (Kelly, 2012).

Poverty has remained high despite economic growth (Australian Productivity Commission, 2018).

Narrative Style

The Department of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island Partnerships (2016-2017) cites unexplained absences that "ranged from 6% for students at Northern Peninsula Area State College, to 87% for students at Aurukun State School" (p. 12).

Kelly (2012) highlights the challenges of balancing traffic, pedestrians and commercial interests.

The Australian Productivity Commission (2018) provides evidence that poverty has remained high despite economic growth.

• << Previous: Websites, Policies & Reports
• Next: Audiovisual & Images >>
• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 1:57 PM
• URL: https://libguides.navitas.com/apa7

APA Style 7th Edition: Citing Your Sources

• Basics of APA Formatting
• In Text Quick View
• Block Quotes
• Books & eBooks
• Thesis/Dissertation
• Audiovisual
• Conference Presentations
• Social Media
• Legal References
• Reports and Gray Literature

Standard Format

Formatting rules, various examples.

• Academic Integrity and Plagiarism
• Additional Resources
• Reference Page

Adapted from American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000

• Italicize report titles
• First word of the title and first word of the subtitle capitalized
• Capitalize proper nouns
• Every other word is lower case
• Shorten long URLs or DOIs: When a DOI or URL is long or complex, you may use shortDOIs or shortened URLs if desired. Use the shortDOI service provided by the International DOI Foundation ( https://shortdoi.org/ ) to create shortDOI.
• << Previous: Data Sets
• Next: Paper Elements & Formatting >>
• Last Updated: Apr 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/APA7th

• Library Guides

APA 7th Referencing

• Reports & Grey Literature

APA 7th Referencing: Reports & Grey Literature

• In-text referencing
• Compiling a Reference list
• Citing tables and figures
• DOIs and Live hyperlinks
• Secondary sources
• Journal Articles
• Conference Materials
• Datasets, Software & Tests
• Social Media
• Images, tables & figures
• Sound & video
• Legislation & Cases
• Personal Communications
• Standards & Patents
• Course Notes or Course Presentations
• Generative AI
• Sample Reference List

On this page

What is grey literature, referencing formats.

Grey literature is defined by GreyNet International (2019) as "multiple document types produced on all levels of government, academics, business, and organization in electronic and print formats not controlled by commercial publishing i.e. where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body" ("GreyNet's business report" section, para. 2).

Grey literature includes a variety of different reports, including government, technical and research reports, as well as press releases, codes of ethics, grants, and policy and issues briefs (American Psychological Association, 2020, p. 329).

The basics of a reference list entry for a report:

• Author or authors.  The surname is followed by first initials. The Author may be a government or corporate entity.
• Title of report (In italics . Include the report number in brackets where relevant)
• Publisher information (if the author and the publisher are the same, omit the publisher)
• The first line of each citation is left adjusted. Every subsequent line is indented 5-7 spaces.

Example:  

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017).  Childhood education and care  (No. 4402.0). https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]         /Lookup/4402.0Main+Features1June%202017?OpenDocument

• << Previous: Newspapers
• Next: Conference Materials >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 11:36 AM
• URL: https://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/apa-referencing

APA Citation Guide (7th edition) CGS

• Advertisments
• Books & e-Books
• Book Reviews
• Class Notes, Class Lectures and Presentations
• Encyclopedias & Dictionaries
• Generative AI
• Government Documents
• Images, Charts, Graphs, Maps & Tables
• Journal Articles
• Magazine Articles
• Newspaper Articles
• Personal Communication (Interviews, Emails)
• Social Media
• Videos & DVDs
• When Creating Digital Assignments
• When Information Is Missing
• Works Cited in Another Source
• Paraphrasing
• Reference List & Sample Writing
• Annotated Bibliography

Book Review From Library Database (No Title)

Author of Review's Last Name, First Initial. (Year of Publication). [Review of the book  Title of Book: Subtitle if Any , by Book Author's First Initial. Second Initial if Given Last Name].  Name of Journal ,  Volume Number (Issue Number), first page number-last page number. https://doi.org/DOI-number  (if given)

For more information on how to cite Book Reviews in APA 7, refer to pages 334-335 of the Publication Manual of the APA located at the circulation desk.

Book Review from a Website (with Title)

Author of Review's Last Name, First Initial. (Year of Publication). Title of Review. [Review of the book  Title of Book: Subtitle if Any , by Book Author's First Initial. Second Initial if Given Last Name].  Title of Website , URL

• << Previous: Books & e-Books
• Next: Class Notes, Class Lectures and Presentations >>
• Last Updated: Sep 1, 2023 10:43 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.uwm.edu/c.php?g=1007936

• AUT Library
• Library Guides
• Referencing styles and applications

APA 7th Referencing Style Guide

• Reports & grey literature
• Referencing & APA style
• In-text citation
• Elements of a reference
• Format & examples of a reference list
• Conferences

Reference format

Code of ethics, press releases, waitangi tribunal reports.

• Figures (graphs and images)
• Theses and dissertations
• Audio works
• Films, TV & video
• Visual works
• Computer software, games & apps
• Lecture notes & Intranet resources
• Legal resources
• Personal communications
• PowerPoint slides
• Social media
• Specific health examples
• Standards & patents
• Websites & webpages
• Footnotes and appendices
• Frequently asked questions
• Reports include annual reports, government reports, technical reports and research reports.
• Grey literature includes press releases, codes of ethics, grants, policy briefs and other unpublished research.
• It is optional, but sometimes helpful, to describe the type of material in square brackets after the title
• If the publisher is the same as the author, omit the publisher from the source element

Find how to cite in text on the  In-text citation  page.

Annual report, government report, reports from a database.

• For works from databases with limited circulation (e.g. Passport, ERIC,  MarketLine, etc.) and requiring a login to access, provide the name of the database and the URL of the database homepage when the publication is original and is only available in that database. APA Manual s. 9.30, pp. 296-297

Print report

Online report   .

• << Previous: Conferences
• Next: Figures (graphs and images) >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:37 PM
• URL: https://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/APA7th

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Cite a Review in APA Referencing

2-minute read

• 8th November 2020

Reviews of books, films, and other media can be great sources in academic writing. But how do you cite a review using APA referencing ? In this post, we explain the basics of citations and the reference list entry.

In-Text Citations for a Review in APA Style

Citations for a review in APA referencing are similar to those for other sources. This means you cite the reviewer’s surname and year of publication:

One review was especially scathing (Smith, 2001).

In addition, if you quote a print source, make sure to cite a page number:

Smith (2001) dismisses the argument as “puerile” (p. 16).

For more on APA citations, see our blog post on the topic .

Reviews in an APA Reference List

The format for a review in an APA reference list will depend on where it was published. For instance, for a review published in a newspaper, you would cite it as a newspaper article . But for a review published on a blog or website, you would cite it as a blog post or website instead.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

In all cases, though, you will need to adapt the format by adding details of the thing being reviewed in square brackets after the review title.

You can see APA-style references for reviews from an academic journal and a website below, complete with this extra information:

Smith, G. (2001). A backward step for applied ethics [Review of the book Righteous Thought, Righteous Action , by X. Morrison]. Journal of Applied Philosophy , 18(1), 16–24.

Bert, E. (2018). Neil Breen outdoes himself again [Review of the film Twisted Pair , by N. Breen, Dir.]. BadMovieCentral. http://www.badmoviecentral.com/reviews/twisted-pair/

This ensures the reader can identify both the review you’re citing and the thing being reviewed from the reference list entry alone.

Expert APA Proofreading

To make sure your references are all in order, as well as the rest of your academic writing, check out our free online APA guide . You might also want to get your work proofread by one of our APA experts. Learn more about our APA proofreading services here.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

How to Cite the CDC in APA

If you’re writing about health issues, you might need to reference the Centers for Disease...

5-minute read

Six Product Description Generator Tools for Your Product Copy

Introduction If you’re involved with ecommerce, you’re likely familiar with the often painstaking process of...

What Is a Content Editor?

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

•   LibGuides
•   A-Z List
•   Help

IND5937: Special Topics: Literature Review

• Find Background Info: Architecture
• Find Architecture Articles
• Searching Tips
• Interlibrary Loan
• Literature Review

APA 7th Edition

• In-Text Citations
• Books/Book Chapters
• Social Media/Apps/Websites
• Video/TV/Podcasts
• Presentations/Dissertations
• Data/Unpublished Works
• Visual Works
• Legal Materials

This guide will provide information on how to cite your sources in-text and in your reference list using APA style & formatting. Click the tabs for an example of each. 

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association

Examples of Reference Lists & In-text Citations

Additional resources:.

• Sample APA Papers from APA Style Download the Word Document and use the template for your APA papers.
• Sample Student Paper using APA from OWL Includes notes to explain the details. From APA Style. Use this sample paper as a guide for headings, in-text citations, references, & more.

The Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) APA Guide

• No Date : if there isn't a date, the reference starts with the author. 

Lucas, T. (n.d.). Mother nature revolts.  U.S. News & World

Report.   https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-04-17/why-you-still-havent-gotten-your-coronavirus-stimulus-check

The in-text citation will look like this:

According to Lucas,  ... (n.d.).

It is hypothesized that Coronavirus was the planet's way of making a point (Lucas, n.d.).

• No Author : if there isn't an author, the reference starts with the title. 

Mother nature revolts. (2020, March 29). U.S. News & World

"Mother nature revolts" ... (2020).

It is hypothesized that Coronavirus was the planet's way of making a point ("Mother nature revolts", 2020).

• Exact quotes:  page numbers (or paragraph numbers) must be included for exact quotes: 

It was hypothesized that, "Coronavirus was the planet's way of making a point" (Lucas, 2017, p. 5.).

It was  hypothesized that, "Coronavirus w as the planet's way of making a point" (Lucas, 2017,  para . 5.).

• ​ ​ DOI = Digital Object Identifier.   If an item has a DOI, it must be included in the reference.  Not all articles and e-books will have a DOI.
• The research ... (Gonzalez & Perez., 2020).
• According to Perez, .... (2020).

If there are 2 authors, include both of them every time in the in-text citations.

• The research ... (Gonzalez et al., 2020).
• According to Gonzalez et al. .... (2020).
• Up to 20 Authors : names and initials for all 20 authors must be provided in the reference list. It will look like this:

The in-text citation will look like this: 

According to Smith et al. ... (2020). 

The research .... (Smith, et al., 2020).

• 21+ Authors : for sources with more than 20 authors, the first 19 are included in the reference list followed by an ellipses and the final author. It looks like this:

• Citing Multiple Works :  when referring to multiple works in-text, place the citations in alphabetical order, separating them with semicolons.

(Edwards, 2012; Flygare et al., 2019; Steba, 2015).

• Citing Multiple Works by the same author(s) in the same year:  when multiple references have identical author (or authors) and publication year, include a lowercase letter after the year. The year–letter combination is used in both the in-text citation and the reference list entry. Use only the year with a letter in the in-text citation, even if the reference list entry contains a more specific date.

Smith, J. & Ortiz, P. (2019a, February). Judge Judy and her impact on society.  Journal of Social Science, 15 (2), 16-25.

http://journsocscience.com

Smith, J. & Ortiz, P. (2019b, March). Judge Judy impacts social justice.  Journal of Social Science, 15 (2), 16-25.

Smith and Ortiz found ... (2019a).

...  (Smith & Ortiz, 2019b).

• Citing a Source within a Source :

Arpan, L. M., & Raney, A. A. (2003). An experimental investigation of news source and the hostile media effect. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80 (2), 265-281.

(Gunther, 1992, as cited in Arpan & Raney, 2003);

The in-text citation gives credit to the source used. This is the same one included in the reference list.

• Citing Personal Communication (for example via email or messenger):

Because readers cannot retrieve the communication, it is not included in the reference list.   The communication is cited in the text of the paper only.  

S. Fernandez (personal communication, April 15, 2020) ...

... (S. Fernandez, personal communication, April 15, 2020). 

• Organizational Authors with Common Acronyms

If an organization or government entity is commonly known by it's acronym, it can be used in-text but the full name should be spelled out in the reference list.  

The first in-text citation will look like this: 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS, 2020), described ... 

... (The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS], 2020).

In-text citations that follow can use the acronym:

According to CMS ... (2020).

... (CMS, 2020).

The reference list will always include the spelled out organization (and not the acronym):

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servic e s. (2020).  ...

If you use Artificial Intelligence generated text such as ChatGPT, it needs to be cited.

However, before you get help from ai, check your syllabus and/or ask your professor whether it is allowed , example to model:.

When prompted “Why is toxic positivity a problem in the workplace,” the ChatGPT-generated text indicated that “toxic positivity can be harmful as it can lead to a dismissive attitude towards the concerns or struggles of employees” (OpenAI, 2023).

OpenAI. (2023).  ChatGPT  (Mar 23 version). [Large language model].  https://chat.openai.com/chat

• APA Style: How to cite ChatGPT We, the APA Style team, are not robots. We can all pass a CAPTCHA test, and we know our roles in a Turing test. And, like so many nonrobot human beings this year, we’ve spent a fair amount of time reading, learning, and thinking about issues related to large language models, artificial intelligence (AI), AI-generated text, and specifically ChatGPT. We’ve also been gathering opinions and feedback about the use and citation of ChatGPT. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared ideas, opinions, research, and feedback.

In-Text Citation Basics:

• APA uses author-date citation system
• Informs the reader where the information came from
• Refers the reader to the source information
• Use sparingly
• Page numbers (or paragraph numbers) must be included for exact quotes
• Only include relevant material
• Block quotes = 40+ words, no quotation marks, indented

Neu (2015) stated that “healthcare is a right” (p. 6).

In 2017, Smith argued that “healthcare is a privilege” (para. 3) and therefore should not be free.

The notion that healthcare is a right has been debated by many authors (Neu, 2105, p. 6; Smith, 2017, para. 3).

Blockquote:

Avoid Plagiarism

Indicate info. from various sources

Easily identify sources

Adds credibility to your writing

Expands breadth/depth of your writing

Acknowledge the sources that you have borrowed from

• The reference list starts on a new page with the word References , centered and bold

Double-spaced

Your reference list must match your in-text citations and vice versa

Alphabetical list by author’s last name

Use a hanging indent for every line after the first

For titles of books, articles, & websites in reference lists, capitalize only:

• the first word
• the first word after a colon
• proper nouns

In-Text Citation Examples:

General reference form :.

Author Last Name(s), First Initial, Middle Initial. (Date). Title of article. Title of Source, volume number (issue number), page

numbers. DOI or URL.  

Reference Examples: 

Articles with a doi (digital object identifier):.

McConkey, S.M., & Christiansen, S.J. (2020). Language learning in Miami: A cross-linguistic model of diverse Spanish

dialects. Psychological Review , 128 (8), 25-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000126

Articles without a DOI:

Andersen, J. (2020, March 30). Miami and Coronavirus. New York Times . C1

Pearsong, S., Padron, M., & Ortiz, J. (2020, January 1). What the New Year has in store for the U.S. The New

Yorker.  https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-homemade-insight-of-fetch-the-bolt-cutters

Article with an article number or eLocator

​ Smith, T. C., Castillo, M. J., Jackson, G. L., Simpson, B. B., Lantry, R. S., O'Reilly, S. T., Rosenberg, F., Lee, L. H., Cox,

G.,  Harris, H. L., Kass, P., Gonzalez, W. L., Hughes, W., Carter, D., Campbell, C., Baker, A. B., Flores, T., Gray, W. E., 

Green, G., ... Nelson, T. P. (2020).  Miami and Coronavirus. PLOS ONE, 14 (1), Article

e0209899.  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209899  

Reference Examples:

TIP: In the 7th edition, publisher location is no longer required when citing books.

Authored book with a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Example:

Nadler, J.T. & Voyles, E. C. (2020).  Stereotypes: The incidence and impacts of bias.  ABC-CLIO.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3389 /fpsyg.2015.0004

Authored book without a DOI (print or ebook) Example:

Johnson, D.W. (2020). The customer revolution in healthcare: Delivering kinder, smarter, affordable care for all. McGraw-Hill.

Edited book without a DOI Example:

Hacker Hughes, J. (Ed). (2017). Military veteran psychological health and social care: Contemporary approaches. Routledge.

Chapter in an edited book with a DOI Example:

Stone, C. (2020). Stereotypes of veterans. In J. T. Nadler & Voyles, E. C. (Eds.), Stereotypes: The incidence and impacts of

bias . (pp. 213-225). ABC-CLIO. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389 /fpsyg.2015.0004.

Chapter in an edited book without a DOI Example:

Weinstock, R., Leong, G. B., & Silva, J. A. (2003). Defining forensic psychiatry: Roles and responsibilities. In R. Rosner (Ed.),

Principles and practice of forensic psychiatr y (2nd ed., pp. 7-13). CRC Press.

Website Examples:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, January 23). People at high risk of developing flu-related complications.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/high_risk.htm

Martin Lillie, C. M. (2016, December 29). Be kind to yourself: How self-compassion can improve your resiliency. Mayo Clinic.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/health-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/self-compassion-can-improve-your-resiliency/art-20267193

Boddy, J., Neumann, T., Jennings, S., Morron, V., Alderson, P., Rees, R., & Gibson, W. (n.d.). Ethics principles. The

Research Ethics Guidebook: A Resource for Social Scientists. http://www.ethicsguidebook.ac.uk/EthicsPrinciples

.... (Boddy, et al., n.d.).

... ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018).

Body et al. ...  (n.d.) ...

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ... (2018).

Tweet Example:

Obama, M. [@MichelleObama] (2020, April 18). Thank you to all the essential workers who are getting up every day and

risking their lives on our behalf. @LauraWBush and I were honored to show our support for their heroic efforts during

tonight's @GlblCtzn’s One World: #TogetherAtHome Special. [video attached] Tweet. Twitter

https://twitter.com/MichelleObama/status/1251695525017137159

.... (Obama, 2020).

Obama (2020) ...

Twitter Profile Example:

Bush, Laura. [@laurawbush]. (n.d.). Tweets . [Twitter profile] Twitter. Retrieved from April 18, 2020 from

https://twitter.com/laurawbush.

.... (Bush, n.d.).

Bush (n.d.) ...  

Facebook Page Example:

Coronavirus (Covid-19) Information Center. (n.d.). Home [Facebook page]. Facebook. Retrieved April 18, 2020, from

https://www.facebook.com/coronavirus_info/

.... ( Coronavirus  ( Covid-19 ) Information Center, n.d. ).

Coronavirus  ( Covid-19 ) Information Center (n.d.) ...

Facebook Post Example:

National institute of mental health. (2018, november 28). suicide affects all ages, genders, races, and ethnicities. check out, these 5 action steps for helping someone in emotional pain [infographic]. facebook. http://bit.ly/321qstq.

.... ( National Institute of Mental Health, 2018 ).

The National Institute of Mental Health ...   (2018) ...

Instagram Video or Photo Example: APA Style [@officialapastyle]. (2018, December 5). Welcome to the official Instagram for #APAStyle! We’re here to help you

With your apa style questions [instagram photograph]. retrieved from https://www.instagram.com/p/bq-a-dvblih/.

.... (APA Style, 2018).

APA Style ...  (2018) ...

Instagram Profile: Star Wars [@starwars]. (n.d.). Posts [Instagram profile]. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from

Https://www.instagram.com/starwars/.

.... (Star Wars, n.d.).

Star Wars ...  (n.d.) ...

Instagram Highlight: APA Style [@officialapastyle]. (n.d.). FAQs [Instagram highlight]. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from

Https://www.instagram.com/s/aglnagxpz2h0oje3otc2odkwntk5mtc5mty1/.

.... (APA Style, n.d.).

APA Style ...  (n.d.) ...

Blog Post Example:

APA Style. (2020, March 19). What’s new in the seventh edition  Publication  Manual.  APA Style.

https://apastyle.apa.org/blog/ whats-new-7e

.... (APA Style, 2020).

The APA Style (2020) ...

Mobile App Examples:

Actual app:.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/epocrates/id281935788?mt=8  

Entry in the App:

Epocrates. (2019). Interaction check: Aspirin + sertraline. In Epocrates medical references (version 18.12) [Mobile app]. App

Store. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/epocrates/id281935788?mt=8

.... (Epocrates, 2019).

Epocrates ... (2019). 

YouTube Example:

Cutts, S. (2017, November 24). Happiness [Video]. YouTube. ​ https:youtube.com/24455202929

.... (Cutts, 2017).

Cutts (2017) ...

Ted Talk Example:

Kowalski, C. (2017, November). The critical role librarians play in the

opioid  crisis  https ://www.ted.com/talks/chera_kowalski_the_critical_role_librarians_play_in_the_opioid_crisis

.... (Kowalski, 2017).

Kowalski (2017) ...

Film or Video Example:

Forman, M. (Director). (1975). One flew over the cuckoo’s nest [Film]. United Artists.

.... (Forman, 1975).

Forman (1975) ...

TV Example:

Wolf, D. (1999-present). Law & Order: Special Victims Unit  [TV Series].  Wolf Entertainment Productions; NBC.

.... (Wolf , 1999-present ).

Wolf (1999-present) ...

Podcast Example:

Poor, N., Woods, E. & Williams, A. (2016-present). Ear Hustle [Audio podcast]. PRX.   https://www.earhustlesq.com/

.... (Poor et al., 2016-present).

Poor et al. (2016-present) ...

Report Examples:

National Cancer Institute. (2018). Facing forward: Life after cancer treatment (NIH Publication No. 18-2424). U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/patient-education/life-after-treatment.pdf

Blackwell, D. L., Lucas, J. W., & Clarke, T. C. (2014). Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview

Survey, 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_260.pdf

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2017). Agency financial report: Fiscal year 2017.

https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-2017-agency-financial-report.pdf

.... ( National Cancer Institute , 2018).

... (Blackwell, et al., 2014).

... ( U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2017).

National Cancer Institute (2018) ...

Blackwell, et al. (2014) ...

According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2017), ...

Presentation Example:

O'Reilly, P., Edwards, C., & Hamil, S. K. (2020, April 1-3).  How to cite properly in APA.  [Paper presentation]. Florida Library Association 100th Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, United States.

*Replace [Paper presentation] with [Conference presentation] or [Poster presentation] as needed. 

.... (O'Reilly, et al., 2020).

O'Reilly et al. (2020) ...

Dissertation Examples:

Unpublished:

Hodges, L. (2018). Instructional design perceptions and practices of faculty [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Florida

International University.

Sanderson, K. R. (2012). Time orientation in organizations: Polychronicity and multitasking (Publication No. 3554209)

[Doctoral dissertation Florida International University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses.

.... (Hodges, 2018).

Sanderson (2012) ...

Unpublished Manuscript Example:

Yen, J., Chen, Y., Rigotti, A., & Deckard C. (2016). Linking good customer services to increased sales: An observational study

[Unpublished manuscript]. College of Business, Florida International University.

Include the department and institution where the work was published if possible. 

....  (Yen et al., 2016).

Yen, et al. (2016) ...

Data Set Examples:

Published Data:

Pew Research Center (2018).  Core Trend Survey  [Data set]. 

https ://www.pewresearch.org/internet/dataset/core-trends - survey/

Unpublished Unnamed Raw Data Set :

Baer,  R. A. (2015). [Unpublished raw data on the correlations between the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire and the

Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills]. University of Kentucky.

.... (Pew Research Center, 2018).

Baer (2015) ...

Infographic Example:

Florida Library Association. (2020, February). Federal funds in Florida  [Infographic]. https://www.flalib.org/advocacy ​

.... (Florida Library Association [FLA], 2020).

Florida Library Association [FLA] (2020) ...

Map Example:

Florida International University GIS Center. (2015). BIKE – Bicycle Knowledge Explorer (Palm Beach)  [Map].

https://maps.fiu.edu/gis/research/projects/255/bike-%E2%80%93-bicycle-knowledge-explorer-palm-beach

.... ( Florida International  University  GIS Center , 2015).

Florida International  University  GIS Center  (2015) ...

Photograph Example:

McCurry, S. (1985). Afghan girl [Photograph]. National Geographic.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/national-geographic-magazine-50-years-of-covers/#/ngm-1985-jun-714.jpg

.... (McCurry, 1985).

McCurry (1985) ...

PowerPoint or Lecture Notes Example:

Cana, E., & Vasilev, J. (2019, May 22). [Lecture notes on resource allocation]. Department of Management Control and

Information Systems, University of Chile. https://uchilefau.academia.edu/ElseZCanan

.... (Mack & Spake, 2018).

Cana and Vasiley (2019) ...

Museum Example:

Wood, G. (1930). American gothic [Painting]. Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. https://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/6565

.... (Wood, 1930).

Wood (1930) ...

APA 7th Edition Videos & Tutorials

• References Part 1
• References Part 2

APA 7th Edition: Set up an APA Format Paper in 6 Minutes | Scribbr

• << Previous: RefWorks
• Next: Need Help >>
• Last Updated: Mar 20, 2024 11:46 AM
• URL: https://library.fiu.edu/IND5937

Information

Fiu libraries floorplans, green library, modesto a. maidique campus, hubert library, biscayne bay campus.

Directions: Green Library, MMC

Directions: Hubert Library, BBC

How to Write a Literature Review

• Critical analysis
• Sample Literature Reviews
• Scaffold examples for organising Literature Reviews
• Writing an Abstract
• Creating Appendices
• APA Reference Guide
• Library Resources
• Guide References

Reference Guide

APA 7th edition Reference Guide  

St Patrick's College uses APA 7th edition to reference information sources. There are some subjects where APA Referencing is not used, so it is important to clarify with your teacher regarding the reference style required.    

This guide provides the rules for the  APA  7th Edition Reference style  and its application across a range of source material, including print, online, audio/visual, images and graphs, social media and personal communication. Each source has its own page within the guide, with in-text citation and reference listing examples.

The Library Team are available to help you get your head around referencing, and can check your reference lists prior to assignment submission. A Library Helpdesk ticket needs to be raised to action this request.

The APA Reference Guide can be found on the Library website:

The APA Reference Guide can also be found in every Research Guide, as per highlighted area below:

• << Previous: Glossary
• Next: Library Resources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 9:14 AM
• URL: https://saintpatricks-nsw.libguides.com/lit_review

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Reference List: Online Media

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Article in Electronic Journal

When citing an article in an electronic journal, include a DOI if one is associated with the article.

DOIs may not always be available. In these cases, use a URL. Many academic journals provide stable URLs that function similarly to DOIs. These are preferable to ordinary URLs copied and pasted from the browser's address bar.

• Open access
• Published: 19 April 2024

Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties

• Lluna Maria Bru-Luna 1 ,
• Manuel Martí-Vilar 2 ,
• César Merino-Soto 3 ,
• José Livia-Segovia 4 ,
• Juan Garduño-Espinosa 5 &
• Filiberto Toledano-Toledano 5 , 6 , 7  

BMC Psychology volume  12 , Article number:  217 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

305 Accesses

Metrics details

The person-centered care (PCC) approach plays a fundamental role in ensuring quality healthcare. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) is one of the shortest and simplest tools currently available for measuring PCC. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence in validation studies of the P-CAT, taking the “Standards” as a frame of reference.

First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method. Second, a systematic descriptive literature review of validity tests was conducted following the “Standards” framework. The search strategy and information sources were obtained from the Cochrane, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. With regard to the eligibility criteria and selection process, a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335866), and articles had to meet criteria for inclusion in the systematic review.

A total of seven articles were included. Empirical evidence indicates that these validations offer a high number of sources related to test content, internal structure for dimensionality and internal consistency. A moderate number of sources pertain to internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables. There is little evidence of response processes, internal structure in measurement invariance terms, and test consequences.

The various validations of the P-CAT are not framed in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the “Standards” are. This can affect clinical practice because people’s health may depend on it. The findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on the types of validity traditionally studied and overlook interpretation of the scores in terms of their intended use.

Peer Review reports

Person-centered care (PCC)

Quality care for people with chronic diseases, functional limitations, or both has become one of the main objectives of medical and care services. The person-centered care (PCC) approach is an essential element not only in achieving this goal but also in providing high-quality health maintenance and medical care [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. In addition to guaranteeing human rights, PCC provides numerous benefits to both the recipient and the provider [ 4 , 5 ]. Additionally, PCC includes a set of necessary competencies for healthcare professionals to address ongoing challenges in this area [ 6 ]. PCC includes the following elements [ 7 ]: an individualized, goal-oriented care plan based on individuals’ preferences; an ongoing review of the plan and the individual’s goals; support from an interprofessional team; active coordination among all medical and care providers and support services; ongoing information exchange, education and training for providers; and quality improvement through feedback from the individual and caregivers.

There is currently a growing body of literature on the application of PCC. A good example of this is McCormack’s widely known mid-range theory [ 8 ], an internationally recognized theoretical framework for PCC and how it is operationalized in practice. This framework forms a guide for care practitioners and researchers in hospital settings. This framework is elaborated in PCC and conceived of as “an approach to practice that is established through the formation and fostering of therapeutic relationships between all care providers, service users, and others significant to them, underpinned by values of respect for persons, [the] individual right to self-determination, mutual respect, and understanding” [ 9 ].

Thus, as established by PCC, it is important to emphasize that reference to the person who is the focus of care refers not only to the recipient but also to everyone involved in a care interaction [ 10 , 11 ]. PCC ensures that professionals are trained in relevant skills and methodology since, as discussed above, carers are among the agents who have the greatest impact on the quality of life of the person in need of care [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Furthermore, due to the high burden of caregiving, it is essential to account for caregivers’ well-being. In this regard, studies on professional caregivers are beginning to suggest that the provision of PCC can produce multiple benefits for both the care recipient and the caregiver [ 15 ].

Despite a considerable body of literature and the frequent inclusion of the term in health policy and research [ 16 ], PCC involves several complications. There is no standard consensus on the definition of this concept [ 17 ], which includes problematic areas such as efficacy assessment [ 18 , 19 ]. In addition, the difficulty of measuring the subjectivity involved in identifying the dimensions of the CPC and the infrequent use of standardized measures are acute issues [ 20 ]. These limitations and purposes motivated the creation of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT; [ 21 ]), which emerged from the need for a brief, economical, easily applied, versatile and comprehensive assessment instrument to provide valid and reliable measures of PCC for research purposes [ 21 ].

Person-centered care assessment tool (P-CAT)

There are several instruments that can measure PCC from different perspectives (i.e., the caregiver or the care recipient) and in different contexts (e.g., hospitals and nursing homes). However, from a practical point of view, the P-CAT is one of the shortest and simplest tools and contains all the essential elements of PCC described in the literature. It was developed in Australia to measure the approach of long-term residential settings to older people with dementia, although it is increasingly used in other healthcare settings, such as oncology units [ 22 ] and psychiatric hospitals [ 23 ].

Due to the brevity and simplicity of its application, the versatility of its use in different medical and care contexts, and its potential emic characteristics (i.e., constructs that can be cross-culturally applicable with reasonable and similar structure and interpretation; [ 24 ]), the P-CAT is one of the most widely used tests by professionals to measure PCC [ 25 , 26 ]. It has expanded to several countries with cultural and linguistic differences. Since its creation, it has been adapted in countries separated by wide cultural and linguistic differences, such as Norway [ 27 ], Sweden [ 28 ], China [ 29 ], South Korea [ 30 ], Spain [ 25 ], and Italy [ 31 ].

The P-CAT comprises 13 items rated on a 5-point ordinal scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”), with high scores indicating a high degree of person-centeredness. The scale consists of three dimensions: person-centered care (7 items), organizational support (4 items) and environmental accessibility (2 items). In the original study ( n  = 220; [ 21 ]), the internal consistency of the instrument yielded satisfactory values for the total scale ( α  = 0.84) and good test-retest reliability ( r  =.66) at one-week intervals. A reliability generalization study conducted in 2021 [ 32 ] that estimated the internal consistency of the P-CAT and analyzed possible factors that could affect the it revealed that the mean α value for the 25 meta-analysis samples (some of which were part of the validations included in this study) was 0.81, and the only variable that had a statistically significant relationship with the reliability coefficient was the mean age of the sample. With respect to internal structure validity, three factors (56% of the total variance) were obtained, and content validity was assessed by experts, literature reviews and stakeholders [ 33 ].

Although not explicitly stated, the apparent commonality between validation studies of different versions of the P-CAT may be influenced by an influential decades-old validity framework that differentiates three categories: content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity [ 34 , 35 ]. However, a reformulation of the validity of the P-CAT within a modern framework, which would provide a different definition of validity, has not been performed.

Scale validity

Traditionally, validation is a process focused on the psychometric properties of a measurement instrument [ 36 ]. In the early 20th century, with the frequent use of standardized measurement tests in education and psychology, two definitions emerged: the first defined validity as the degree to which a test measures what it intends to measure, while the second described the validity of an instrument in terms of the correlation it presents with a variable [ 35 ].

However, in the past century, validity theory has evolved, leading to the understanding that validity should be based on specific interpretations for an intended purpose. It should not be limited to empirically obtained psychometric properties but should also be supported by the theory underlying the construct measured. Thus, to speak of classical or modern validity theory suggests an evolution in the classical or modern understanding of the concept of validity. Therefore, a classical approach (called classical test theory, CTT) is specifically differentiated from a modern approach. In general, recent concepts associated with a modern view of validity are based on (a) a unitary conception of validity and (b) validity judgments based on inferences and interpretations of the scores of a measure [ 37 , 38 ]. This conceptual advance in the concept of validity led to the creation of a guiding framework to for obtaining evidence to support the use and interpretation of the scores obtained by a measure [ 39 ].

This purpose is addressed by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (“Standards”), a guide created by the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) in 2014 with the aim of providing guidelines to assess the validity of the interpretations of scores of an instrument based on their intended use. Two conceptual aspects stand out in this modern view of validity: first, validity is a unitary concept centered on the construct; second, validity is defined as “the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests” [ 37 ]. Thus, the “Standards” propose several sources that serve as a reference for assessing different aspects of validity. The five sources of valid evidence are as follows [ 37 ]: test content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences of testing. According to AERA et al. [ 37 ], test content validity refers to the relationship of the administration process, subject matter, wording and format of test items to the construct they are intended to measure. It is measured predominantly with qualitative methods but without excluding quantitative approaches. The validity of the responses is based on analysis of the cognitive processes and interpretation of the items by respondents and is measured with qualitative methods. Internal structure validity is based on the interrelationship between the items and the construct and is measured by quantitative methods. Validity in terms of the relationship with other variables is based on comparison between the variable that the instrument intends to measure and other theoretically relevant external variables and is measured by quantitative methods. Finally, validity based on the results of the test analyses consequences, both intended and unintended, that may be due to a source of invalidity. It is measured mainly by qualitative methods.

Thus, although validity plays a fundamental role in providing a strong scientific basis for interpretations of test scores, validation studies in the health field have traditionally focused on content validity, criterion validity and construct validity and have overlooked the interpretation and use of scores [ 34 ].

“Standards” are considered a suitable validity theory-based procedural framework for reviewing the validity of questionnaires due to its ability to analyze sources of validity from both qualitative and quantitative approaches and its evidence-based method [ 35 ]. Nevertheless, due to a lack of knowledge or the lack of a systematic description protocol, very few instruments to date have been reviewed within the framework of the “Standards” [ 39 ].

Current study

Although the P-CAT is one of the most widely used instruments by professionals and has seven validations [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 40 ], no analysis has been conducted of its validity within the framework of the “Standards”. That is, empirical evidence of the validity of the P-CAT has not been obtained in a way that helps to develop a judgment based on a synthesis of the available information.

A review of this type is critical given that some methodological issues seem to have not been resolved in the P-CAT. For example, although the multidimensionality of the P-CAT was identified in the study that introduced it, Bru-Luna et al. [ 32 ] recently stated that in adaptations of the P-CAT [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 ], the total score is used for interpretation and multidimensionality is disregarded. Thus, the multidimensionality of the original study was apparently not replicated. Bru-Luna et al. [ 32 ] also indicated that the internal structure validity of the P-CAT is usually underreported due to a lack of sufficiently rigorous approaches to establish with certainty how its scores are calculated.

The validity of the P-CAT, specifically its internal structure, appears to be unresolved. Nevertheless, substantive research and professional practice point to this measure as relevant to assessing PCC. This perception is contestable and judgment-based and may not be sufficient to assess the validity of the P-CAT from a cumulative and synthetic angle based on preceding validation studies. An adequate assessment of validity requires a model to conceptualize validity followed by a review of previous studies of the validity of the P-CAT using this model.

Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence provided by P-CAT validation studies while taking the “Standards” as a framework.

The present study comprises two distinct but interconnected procedures. First, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA method ( [ 41 ]; Additional file 1; Additional file 2) with the aim of collecting all validations of the P-CAT that have been developed. Second, a systematic description of the validity evidence for each of the P-CAT validations found in the systematic review was developed following the “Standards” framework [ 37 ]. The work of Hawkins et al. [ 39 ], the first study to review validity sources according to the guidelines proposed by the “Standards”, was also used as a reference. Both provided conceptual and pragmatic guidance for organizing and classifying validity evidence for the P-CAT.

The procedure conducted in the systematic review is described below, followed by the procedure for examining the validity studies.

Systematic review

Search strategy and information sources.

Initially, the Cochrane database was searched with the aim of identifying systematic reviews of the P-CAT. When no such reviews were found, subsequent preliminary searches were performed in the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databases. These databases play a fundamental role in recent scientific literature since they are the main sources of published articles that undergo high-quality content and editorial review processes [ 42 ]. The search formula was as follows. The original P-CAT article [ 21 ] was located, after which all articles that cited it through 2021 were identified and analyzed. This approach ensured the inclusion of all validations. No articles were excluded on the basis of language to avoid language bias [ 43 ]. Moreover, to reduce the effects of publication bias, a complementary search in Google Scholar was also performed to allow the inclusion of “gray” literature [ 44 ]. Finally, a manual search was performed through a review of the references of the included articles to identify other articles that met the search criteria but were not present in any of the aforementioned databases.

This process was conducted by one of the authors and corroborated by another using the Covidence tool [ 45 ]. A third author was consulted in case of doubt.

Eligibility criteria and selection process

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, and the search was conducted according to these criteria. The identification code is CRD42022335866.

The articles had to meet the following criteria for inclusion in the systematic review: (a) a methodological approach to P-CAT validations, (b) an experimental or quasiexperimental studies, (c) studies with any type of sample, and (d) studies in any language. We discarded studies that met at least one of the following exclusion criteria: (a) systematic reviews or bibliometric reviews of the instrument or meta-analyses or (b) studies published after 2021.

Data collection process

After the articles were selected, the most relevant information was extracted from each article. Fundamental data were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet for each of the sections: introduction, methodology, results and discussion. Information was also recorded about the limitations mentioned in each article as well as the practical implications and suggestions for future research.

Given the aim of the study, information was collected about the sources of validity of each study, including test content (judges’ evaluation, literature review and translation), response processes, internal structure (factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings), and relationships with other variables (convergent, divergent, concurrent and predictive validity) and consequences of measurement.

Description of the validity study

To assess the validity of the studies, an Excel table was used. Information was recorded for the seven articles included in the systematic review. The data were extracted directly from the texts of the articles and included information about the authors, the year of publication, the country where each P-CAT validation was produced and each of the five standards proposed in the “Standards” [ 37 ].

The validity source related to internal structure was divided into three sections to record information about dimensionality (e.g., factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings), reliability expression (i.e., internal consistency and test-retest) and the study of factorial invariance according to the groups into which it was divided (e.g., sex, age, profession) and the level of study (i.e., metric, intercepts). This approach allowed much more information to be obtained than relying solely on source validity based on internal structure. This division was performed by the same researcher who performed the previous processes.

Study selection and study characteristics

The systematic review process was developed according to the PRISMA methodology [ 41 ].

The WoS, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched on February 12, 2022 and yielded a total of 485 articles. Of these, 111 were found in WoS, 114 in Scopus, 43 in PubMed and 217 in Google Scholar. In the first phase, the title and abstracts of all the articles were read. In this first screening, 457 articles were eliminated because they did not include studies with a methodological approach to P-CAT validation and one article was excluded because it was the original P-CAT article. This resulted in a total of 27 articles, 19 of which were duplicated in different databases and, in the case of Google Scholar, within the same database. This process yielded a total of eight articles that were evaluated for eligibility by a complete reading of the text. In this step, one of the articles was excluded due to a lack of access to the full text of the study [ 31 ] (although the original manuscript was found, it was impossible to access the complete content; in addition, the authors of the manuscript were contacted, but no reply was received). Finally, a manual search was performed by reviewing the references of the seven studies, but none were considered suitable for inclusion. Thus, the review was conducted with a total of seven articles.

Of the seven studies, six were original validations in other languages. These included Norwegian [ 27 ], Swedish [ 28 ], Chinese (which has two validations [ 29 , 40 ]), Spanish [ 25 ], and Korean [ 30 ]. The study by Selan et al. [ 46 ] included a modification of the Swedish version of the P-CAT and explored the psychometric properties of both versions (i.e., the original Swedish version and the modified version).

The item selection and screening process are illustrated in detail in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews including database searches

Validity analysis

To provide a clear overview of the validity analyses, Table  1 descriptively shows the percentages of items that provide information about the five standards proposed by the “Standards” guide [ 37 ].

The table shows a high number of validity sources related to test content and internal structure in relation to dimensionality and internal consistency, followed by a moderate number of sources for test-retest and relationship with other variables. A rate of 0% is observed for validity sources related to response processes, invariance and test consequences. Below, different sections related to each of the standards are shown, and the information is presented in more detail.

Evidence based on test content

The first standard, which focused on test content, was met for all items (100%). Translation, which refers to the equivalence of content between the original language and the target language, was met in the six articles that conducted validation in another language and/or culture. These studies reported that the validations were translated by bilingual experts and/or experts in the area of care. In addition, three studies [ 25 , 29 , 40 ] reported that the translation process followed International Test Commission guidelines, such as those of Beaton et al. [ 47 ], Guillemin [ 48 ], Hambleton et al. [ 49 ], and Muñiz et al. [ 50 ]. Evaluation by judges, who referred to the relevance, clarity and importance of the content, was divided into two categories: expert evaluation (a panel of expert judges for each of the areas to consider in the evaluation instrument) and experiential evaluation (potential participants testing the test). The first type of evaluation occurred in three of the articles [ 28 , 29 , 46 ], while the other occurred in two [ 25 , 40 ]. Only one of the items [ 29 ] reported that the scale contained items that reflected the dimension described in the literature. The validity evidence related to the test content presented in each article can be found in Table  2 .

Evidence based on response processes

The second standard, related to the validity of the response process, was obtained according to the “Standards” from the analysis of individual responses: “questioning test takers about their performance strategies or response to particular items (…), maintaining records that monitor the development of a response to a writing task (…), documentation of other aspects of performance, like eye movement or response times…” [ 37 ] (p. 15). According to the analysis of the validity of the response processes, none of the articles complied with this evidence.

Evidence based on internal structure

The third standard, validity related to internal structure, was divided into three sections. First, the dimensionality of each study was examined in terms of factor analysis, design, estimator, factor extraction method, factors and items, interfactor R, internal replication, effect of the method, and factor loadings. Le et al. [ 40 ] conducted an exploratory-confirmatory design while Sjögren et al. [ 28 ] conducted a confirmatory-exploratory design to assess construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and investigated it further using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The remaining articles employed only a single form of factor analysis: three employed EFA, and two employed CFA. Regarding the next point, only three of the articles reported the factor extraction method used, including Kaiser’s eigenvalue, criterion, scree plot test, parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Instrument validations yielded a total of two factors in five of the seven articles, while one yielded a single dimension [ 25 ] and the other yielded three dimensions [ 29 ], as in the original instrument. The interfactor R was reported only in the study by Zhong and Lou [ 29 ], whereas in the study by Martínez et al. [ 25 ], it could be easily obtained since it consisted of only one dimension. Internal replication was also calculated in the Spanish validation by randomly splitting the sample into two to test the correlations between factors. The effectiveness of the method was not reported in any of the articles. This information is presented in Table  3 in addition to a summary of the factor loadings.

The second section examined reliability. All the studies presented measures of internal consistency conducted in their entirety with Cronbach’s α coefficient for both the total scale and the subscales. The ω coefficient of McDonald was not used in any case. Four of the seven articles performed a test-retest test. Martínez et al. [ 25 ] conducted a test-retest after a period of seven days, while Le et al. [ 40 ] and Rokstad et al. [ 27 ] performed it between one and two weeks later and Sjögren et al. [ 28 ] allowed approximately two weeks to pass after the initial test.

The third section analyzes the calculation of invariance, which was not reported in any of the studies.

Evidence based on relationships with other variables

In the fourth standard, based on validity according to the relationship with other variables, the articles that reported it used only convergent validity (i.e., it was hypothesized that the variables related to the construct measured by the test—in this case, person-centeredness—were positively or negatively related to another construct). Discriminant validity hypothesizes that the variables related to the PCC construct are not correlated in any way with any other variable studied. No article (0%) measured discriminant evidence, while four (57%) measured convergent evidence [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 46 ]. Convergent validity was obtained through comparisons with instruments such as the Person-Centered Climate Questionnaire–Staff Version (PCQ-S), the Staff-Based Measures of Individualized Care for Institutionalized Persons with Dementia (IC), the Caregiver Psychological Elder Abuse Behavior Scale (CPEAB), the Organizational Climate (CLIOR) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). In the case of Selan et al. [ 46 ], convergent validity was assessed on two items considered by the authors as “crude measures of person-centered care (i.e., external constructs) giving an indication of the instruments’ ability to measure PCC” (p. 4). Concurrent validity, which measures the degree to which the results of one test are or are not similar to those of another test conducted at more or less the same time with the same participants, and predictive validity, which allows predictions to be established regarding behavior based on comparison between the values of the instrument and the criterion, were not reported in any of the studies.

Evidence based on the consequences of testing

The fifth and final standard was related to the consequences of the test. It analyzed the consequences, both intended and unintended, of applying the test to a given sample. None of the articles presented explicit or implicit evidence of this.

The last two sources of validity can be seen in Table  4 .

Table  5 shows the results of the set of validity tests for each study according to the described standards.

The main purpose of this article is to analyze the evidence of validity in different validation studies of the P-CAT. To gather all existing validations, a systematic review of all literature citing this instrument was conducted.

The publication of validation studies of the P-CAT has been constant over the years. Since the publication of the original instrument in 2010, seven validations have been published in other languages (taking into account the Italian version by Brugnolli et al. [ 31 ], which could not be included in this study) as well as a modification of one of these versions. The very unequal distribution of validations between languages and countries is striking. A recent systematic review [ 51 ] revealed that in Europe, the countries where the PCC approach is most widely used are the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, and Norway. It has also been shown that the neighboring countries seem to exert an influence on each other due to proximity [ 52 ] such that they tend to organize healthcare in a similar way, as is the case for Scandinavian countries. This favors the expansion of PCC and explains the numerous validations we found in this geographical area.

Although this approach is conceived as an essential element of healthcare for most governments [ 53 ], PCC varies according to the different definitions and interpretations attributed to it, which can cause confusion in its application (e.g., between Norway and the United Kingdom [ 54 ]). Moreover, facilitators of or barriers to implementation depend on the context and level of development of each country, and financial support remains one of the main factors in this regard [ 53 ]. This fact explains why PCC is not globally widespread among all territories. In countries where access to healthcare for all remains out of reach for economic reasons, the application of this approach takes a back seat, as does the validation of its assessment tools. In contrast, in a large part of Europe or in countries such as China or South Korea that have experienced decades of rapid economic development, patients are willing to be involved in their medical treatment and enjoy more satisfying and efficient medical experiences and environments [ 55 ], which facilitates the expansion of validations of instruments such as the P-CAT.

Regarding validity testing, the guidelines proposed by the “Standards” [ 37 ] were followed. According to the analysis of the different validations of the P-CAT instrument, none of the studies used a structured validity theory-based procedural framework for conducting validation. The most frequently reported validity tests were on the content of the test and two of the sections into which the internal structure was divided (i.e., dimensionality and internal consistency).

In the present article, the most cited source of validity in the studies was the content of the test because most of the articles were validations of the P-CAT in other languages, and the authors reported that the translation procedure was conducted by experts in all cases. In addition, several of the studies employed International Test Commission guidelines, such as those by Beaton et al. [ 47 ], Guillemin [ 48 ], Hambleton et al. [ 49 ], and Muñiz et al. [ 50 ]. Several studies also assessed the relevance, clarity and importance of the content.

The third source of validity, internal structure, was the next most often reported, although it appeared unevenly among the three sections into which this evidence was divided. Dimensionality and internal consistency were reported in all studies, followed by test-retest consistency. In relation to the first section, factor analysis, a total of five EFAs and four CFAs were presented in the validations. Traditionally, EFA has been used in research to assess dimensionality and identify key psychological constructs, although this approach involves a number of inconveniences, such as difficulty testing measurement invariance and incorporating latent factors into subsequent analyses [ 56 ] or the major problem of factor loading matrix rotation [ 57 ]. Studies eventually began to employ CFA, a technique that overcame some of these obstacles [ 56 ] but had other drawbacks; for example, the strict requirement of zero cross-loadings often does not fit the data well, and misspecification of zero loadings tends to produce distorted factors [ 57 ]. Recently, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) has been proposed. This technique is widely recommended both conceptually and empirically to assess the internal structure of psychological tools [ 58 ] since it overcomes the limitations of EFA and CFA in estimating their parameters [ 56 , 57 ].

The next section, reliability, reports the total number of items according to Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient. Reliability is defined as a combination of systematic and random influences that determine the observed scores on a psychological test. Reporting the reliability measure ensures that item-based scores are consistent, that the tool’s responses are replicable and that they are not modified solely by random noise [ 59 , 60 ]. Currently, the most commonly employed reliability coefficient in studies with a multi-item measurement scale (MIMS) is Cronbach’s α [ 60 , 61 ].

Cronbach’s α [ 62 ] is based on numerous strict assumptions (e.g., the test must be unidimensional, factor loadings must be equal for all items and item errors should not covary) to estimate internal consistency. These assumptions are difficult to meet, and their violation may produce small reliability estimates [ 60 ]. One of the alternative measures to α that is increasingly recommended by the scientific literature is McDonald’s ω [ 63 ], a composite reliability measure. This coefficient is recommended for congeneric scales in which tau equivalence is not assumed. It has several advantages. For example, estimates of ω are usually robust when the estimated model contains more factors than the true model, even with small samples, or when skewness in univariate item distributions produces lower biases than those found when using α [ 59 ].

The test-retest method was the next most commonly reported internal structure section in these studies. This type of reliability considers the consistency of the scores of a test between two measurements separated by a period [ 64 ]. It is striking that test-retest consistency does not have a prevalence similar to that of internal consistency since, unlike internal consistency, test-retest consistency can be assessed for practically all types of patient-reported outcomes. It is even considered by some measurement experts to report reliability with greater relevance than internal consistency since it plays a fundamental role in the calculation of parameters for health measures [ 64 ]. However, the literature provides little guidance regarding the assessment of this type of reliability.

The internal structure section that was least frequently reported in the studies in this review was invariance. A lack of invariance refers to a difference between scores on a test that is not explained by group differences in the structure it is intended to measure [ 65 ]. The invariance of the measure should be emphasized as a prerequisite in comparisons between groups since “if scale invariance is not examined, item bias may not be fully recognized and this may lead to a distorted interpretation of the bias in a particular psychological measure” [ 65 ].

Evidence related to other variables was the next most reported source of validity in the studies included in this review. Specifically, the four studies that reported this evidence did so according to convergent validity and cited several instruments. None of the studies included evidence of discriminant validity, although this may be because there are currently several obstacles related to the measurement of this type of validity [ 66 ]. On the one hand, different definitions are used in the applied literature, which makes its evaluation difficult; on the other hand, the literature on discriminant validity focuses on techniques that require the use of multiple measurement methods, which often seem to have been introduced without sufficient evidence or are applied randomly.

Validity related to response processes was not reported by any of the studies. There are several methods to analyze this validity. These methods can be divided into two groups: “those that directly access the psychological processes or cognitive operations (think aloud, focus group, and interviews), compared to those which provide indirect indicators which in turn require additional inference (eye tracking and response times)” [ 38 ]. However, this validity evidence has traditionally been reported less frequently than others in most studies, perhaps because there are fewer clear and accepted practices on how to design or report these studies [ 67 ].

Finally, the consequences of testing were not reported in any of the studies. There is debate regarding this source of validity, with two main opposing streams of thought. On the one hand [ 68 , 69 ]) suggests that consequences that appear after the application of a test should not derive from any source of test invalidity and that “adverse consequences only undermine the validity of an assessment if they can be attributed to a problem of fit between the test and the construct” (p. 6). In contrast, Cronbach [ 69 , 70 ] notes that adverse social consequences that may result from the application of a test may call into question the validity of the test. However, the potential risks that may arise from the application of a test should be minimized in any case, especially in regard to health assessments. To this end, it is essential that this aspect be assessed by instrument developers and that the experiences of respondents be protected through the development of comprehensive and informed practices [ 39 ].

This work is not without limitations. First, not all published validation studies of the P-CAT, such as the Italian version by Brugnolli et al. [ 31 ], were available. These studies could have provided relevant information. Second, many sources of validity could not be analyzed because the studies provided scant or no data, such as response processes [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], relationships with other variables [ 27 , 28 , 40 ], consequences of testing [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], or invariance [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] in the case of internal structure and interfactor R [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 40 , 46 ], internal replication [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] or the effect of the method [ 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 40 , 46 ] in the case of dimensionality. In the future, it is hoped that authors will become aware of the importance of validity, as shown in this article and many others, and provide data on unreported sources so that comprehensive validity studies can be performed.

The present work also has several strengths. The search was extensive, and many studies were obtained using three different databases, including WoS, one of the most widely used and authoritative databases in the world. This database includes a large number and variety of articles and is not fully automated due to its human team [ 71 , 72 , 73 ]. In addition, to prevent publication bias, gray literature search engines such as Google Scholar were used to avoid the exclusion of unpublished research [ 44 ]. Finally, linguistic bias was prevented by not limiting the search to articles published in only one or two languages, thus avoiding the overrepresentation of studies in one language and underrepresentation in others [ 43 ].

Conclusions

Validity is understood as the degree to which tests and theory support the interpretations of instrument scores for their intended use [ 37 ]. From this perspective, the various validations of the P-CAT are not presented in a structured, valid, theory-based procedural framework like the “Standards” are. After integration and analysis of the results, it was observed that these validation reports offer a high number of sources of validity related to test content, internal structure in dimensionality and internal consistency, a moderate number of sources for internal structure in terms of test-retest reliability and the relationship with other variables, and a very low number of sources for response processes, internal structure in terms of invariance, and test consequences.

Validity plays a fundamental role in ensuring a sound scientific basis for test interpretations because it provides evidence of the extent to which the data provided by the test are valid for the intended purpose. This can affect clinical practice as people’s health may depend on it. In this sense, the “Standards” are considered a suitable and valid theory-based procedural framework for studying this modern conception of questionnaire validity, which should be taken into account in future research in this area.

Although the P-CAT is one of the most widely used instruments for assessing PCC, as shown in this study, PCC has rarely been studied. The developers of measurement tests applied to the health care setting, on which the health and quality of life of many people may depend, should use this validity framework to reflect the clear purpose of the measurement. This approach is important because the equity of decision making by healthcare professionals in daily clinical practice may depend on the source of validity. Through a more extensive study of validity that includes the interpretation of scores in terms of their intended use, the applicability of the P-CAT, an instrument that was initially developed for long-term care homes for elderly people, could be expanded to other care settings. However, the findings of this study show that validation studies continue to focus on traditionally studied types of validity and overlook the interpretation of scores in terms of their intended use.

Data availability

All data relevant to the study were included in the article or uploaded as additional files. Additional template data extraction forms are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

American Educational Research Association

American Psychological Association

Confirmatory factor analysis

Organizational Climate

Caregiver Psychological Elder Abuse Behavior Scale

Exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory structural equation modeling

Staff-based Measures of Individualized Care for Institutionalized Persons with Dementia

Maslach Burnout Inventory

Multi-item measurement scale

Maximum likelihood

National Council on Measurement in Education

Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool

• Person-centered care

Person-Centered Climate Questionnaire–Staff Version

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

International Register of Systematic Review Protocols

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

weighted least square mean and variance adjusted

Web of Science

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy; 2001.

Google Scholar  

International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations. What is patient-centred healthcare? A review of definitions and principles. 2nd ed. London, UK: International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations; 2007.

World Health Organization. WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services: interim report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.

Britten N, Ekman I, Naldemirci Ö, Javinger M, Hedman H, Wolf A. Learning from Gothenburg model of person centred healthcare. BMJ. 2020;370:m2738.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Van Diepen C, Fors A, Ekman I, Hensing G. Association between person-centred care and healthcare providers’ job satisfaction and work-related health: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e042658.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ekman N, Taft C, Moons P, Mäkitalo Å, Boström E, Fors A. A state-of-the-art review of direct observation tools for assessing competency in person-centred care. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;109:103634.

American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care. Person-centered care: a definition and essential elements. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:15–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

McCormack B, McCance TV. Development of a framework for person-centred nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56:472–9.

McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred practice in nursing and health care: theory and practice. Chichester, England: Wiley; 2016.

Nolan MR, Davies S, Brown J, Keady J, Nolan J. Beyond person-centred care: a new vision for gerontological nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13:45–53.

McCormack B, McCance T. Person-centred nursing: theory, models and methods. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

Book   Google Scholar  

Abraha I, Rimland JM, Trotta FM, Dell’Aquila G, Cruz-Jentoft A, Petrovic M, et al. Systematic review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to treat behavioural disturbances in older patients with dementia. The SENATOR-OnTop series. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012759.

Anderson K, Blair A. Why we need to care about the care: a longitudinal study linking the quality of residential dementia care to residents’ quality of life. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;91:104226.

Bauer M, Fetherstonhaugh D, Haesler E, Beattie E, Hill KD, Poulos CJ. The impact of nurse and care staff education on the functional ability and quality of life of people living with dementia in aged care: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;67:27–45.

Smythe A, Jenkins C, Galant-Miecznikowska M, Dyer J, Downs M, Bentham P, et al. A qualitative study exploring nursing home nurses’ experiences of training in person centred dementia care on burnout. Nurse Educ Pract. 2020;44:102745.

McCormack B, Borg M, Cardiff S, Dewing J, Jacobs G, Janes N, et al. Person-centredness– the ‘state’ of the art. Int Pract Dev J. 2015;5:1–15.

Wilberforce M, Challis D, Davies L, Kelly MP, Roberts C, Loynes N. Person-centredness in the care of older adults: a systematic review of questionnaire-based scales and their measurement properties. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:63.

Rathert C, Wyrwich MD, Boren SA. Patient-centered care and outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70:351–79.

Sharma T, Bamford M, Dodman D. Person-centred care: an overview of reviews. Contemp Nurse. 2016;51:107–20.

Ahmed S, Djurkovic A, Manalili K, Sahota B, Santana MJ. A qualitative study on measuring patient-centered care: perspectives from clinician-scientists and quality improvement experts. Health Sci Rep. 2019;2:e140.

Edvardsson D, Fetherstonhaugh D, Nay R, Gibson S. Development and initial testing of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;22:101–8.

Tamagawa R, Groff S, Anderson J, Champ S, Deiure A, Looyis J, et al. Effects of a provincial-wide implementation of screening for distress on healthcare professionals’ confidence and understanding of person-centered care in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:1259–66.

Degl’ Innocenti A, Wijk H, Kullgren A, Alexiou E. The influence of evidence-based design on staff perceptions of a supportive environment for person-centered care in forensic psychiatry. J Forensic Nurs. 2020;16:E23–30.

Hulin CL. A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations: fidelity across languages. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1987;18:115–42.

Martínez T, Suárez-Álvarez J, Yanguas J, Muñiz J. Spanish validation of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Aging Ment Health. 2016;20:550–8.

Martínez T, Martínez-Loredo V, Cuesta M, Muñiz J. Assessment of person-centered care in gerontology services: a new tool for healthcare professionals. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2020;20:62–70.

Rokstad AM, Engedal K, Edvardsson D, Selbaek G. Psychometric evaluation of the Norwegian version of the person-centred Care Assessment Tool. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18:99–105.

Sjögren K, Lindkvist M, Sandman PO, Zingmark K, Edvardsson D. Psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT). Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:406–15.

Zhong XB, Lou VW. Person-centered care in Chinese residential care facilities: a preliminary measure. Aging Ment Health. 2013;17:952–8.

Tak YR, Woo HY, You SY, Kim JH. Validity and reliability of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool in long-term care facilities in Korea. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2015;45:412–9.

Brugnolli A, Debiasi M, Zenere A, Zanolin ME, Baggia M. The person-centered Care Assessment Tool in nursing homes: psychometric evaluation of the Italian version. J Nurs Meas. 2020;28:555–63.

Bru-Luna LM, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Livia J. Reliability generalization study of the person-centered Care Assessment Tool. Front Psychol. 2021;12:712582.

Edvardsson D, Innes A. Measuring person-centered care: a critical comparative review of published tools. Gerontologist. 2010;50:834–46.

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Nolte S, Osborne RH. Validity arguments for patient-reported outcomes: justifying the intended interpretation and use of data. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5:64.

Sireci SG. On the validity of useless tests. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract. 2016;23:226–35.

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice: a protocol for a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e030753.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association. National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

Padilla JL, Benítez I. Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema. 2014;26:136–44.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Hoban E, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice within a theoretical framework: a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035974.

Le C, Ma K, Tang P, Edvardsson D, Behm L, Zhang J, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the person-centred Care Assessment Tool. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e031580.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.

Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338–42.

Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–63.

Arias MM. Aspectos metodológicos Del metaanálisis (1). Pediatr Aten Primaria. 2018;20:297–302.

Covidence. Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation, Australia. 2014. https://www.covidence.org/ . Accessed 28 Feb 2022.

Selan D, Jakobsson U, Condelius A. The Swedish P-CAT: modification and exploration of psychometric properties of two different versions. Scand J Caring Sci. 2017;31:527–35.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–91.

Guillemin F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures. Scand J Rheumatol. 1995;24:61–3.

Hambleton R, Merenda P, Spielberger C. Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005.

Muñiz J, Elosua P, Hambleton RK. International test commission guidelines for test translation and adaptation: second edition. Psicothema. 2013;25:151–7.

Rosengren K, Brannefors P, Carlstrom E. Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse in Europe: a systematic literature review. J Health Organ Manag. 2021;35:265–80.

Alharbi T, Olsson LE, Ekman I, Carlström E. The impact of organizational culture on the outcome of hospital care: after the implementation of person-centred care. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42:104–10.

Bensbih S, Souadka A, Diez AG, Bouksour O. Patient centered care: focus on low and middle income countries and proposition of new conceptual model. J Med Surg Res. 2020;7:755–63.

Stranz A, Sörensdotter R. Interpretations of person-centered dementia care: same rhetoric, different practices? A comparative study of nursing homes in England and Sweden. J Aging Stud. 2016;38:70–80.

Zhou LM, Xu RH, Xu YH, Chang JH, Wang D. Inpatients’ perception of patient-centered care in Guangdong province, China: a cross-sectional study. Inquiry. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580211059482 .

Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:85–110.

Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2009;16:397–438.

Cabedo-Peris J, Martí-Vilar M, Merino-Soto C, Ortiz-Morán M. Basic empathy scale: a systematic review and reliability generalization meta-analysis. Healthc (Basel). 2022;10:29–62.

Flora DB. Your coefficient alpha is probably wrong, but which coefficient omega is right? A tutorial on using R to obtain better reliability estimates. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2020;3:484–501.

McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23:412–33.

Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But… Commun Methods Meas. 2020;14:1–24.

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

McDonald R. Test theory: a unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999.

Polit DF. Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1713–20.

Ceylan D, Çizel B, Karakaş H. Testing destination image scale invariance for intergroup comparison. Tour Anal. 2020;25:239–51.

Rönkkö M, Cho E. An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organ Res Methods. 2022;25:6–14.

Hubley A, Zumbo B. Response processes in the context of validity: setting the stage. In: Zumbo B, Hubley A, editors. Understanding and investigating response processes in validation research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017. pp. 1–12.

Messick S. Validity of performance assessments. In: Philips G, editor. Technical issues in large-scale performance assessment. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; 1996. pp. 1–18.

Moss PA. The role of consequences in validity theory. Educ Meas Issues Pract. 1998;17:6–12.

Cronbach L. Five perspectives on validity argument. In: Wainer H, editor. Test validity. Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum; 1988. pp. 3–17.

Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1:363–76.

Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:245.

Web of Science Group. Editorial selection process. Clarivate. 2024. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/%20editorial-selection-process/ . Accessed 12 Sept 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the casual helpers for their aid in information processing and searching.

This work is one of the results of research project HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207, “Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver”. Main researcher: Filiberto Toledano-Toledano Ph.D. The present research was funded by federal funds for health research and was approved by the Commissions of Research, Ethics and Biosafety (Comisiones de Investigación, Ética y Bioseguridad), Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, National Institute of Health. The source of federal funds did not control the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or decisions regarding publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departamento de Educación, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Europea de Valencia, 46010, Valencia, Spain

Lluna Maria Bru-Luna

Departamento de Psicología Básica, Universitat de València, Blasco Ibáñez Avenue, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain

Manuel Martí-Vilar

Departamento de Psicología, Instituto de Investigación de Psicología, Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Tomás Marsano Avenue 242, Lima 34, Perú

César Merino-Soto

Instituto Central de Gestión de la Investigación, Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Carlos Gonzalez Avenue 285, 15088, San Miguel, Perú

José Livia-Segovia

Unidad de Investigación en Medicina Basada en Evidencias, Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez Instituto Nacional de Salud, Dr. Márquez 162, 06720, Doctores, Cuauhtémoc, Mexico

Juan Garduño-Espinosa & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano

Unidad de Investigación Multidisciplinaria en Salud, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, México-Xochimilco 289, Arenal de Guadalupe, 14389, Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico

Filiberto Toledano-Toledano

Dirección de Investigación y Diseminación del Conocimiento, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias e Innovación para la Formación de Comunidad Científica, INDEHUS, Periférico Sur 4860, Arenal de Guadalupe, 14389, Tlalpan, Mexico City, Mexico

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

L.M.B.L. conceptualized the study, collected the data, performed the formal anal- ysis, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. M.M.V. collected the data and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. C.M.S. collected the data, performed the formal analysis, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.L.S. collected the data, wrote the original draft, and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.G.E. collected the data and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. F.T.T. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. L.M.B.L. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. M.M.V. conceptualized the study and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. C.M.S. reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. J.G.E. reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts. F.T.T. conceptualized the study; provided resources, software, and supervision; wrote the original draft; and reviewed and edited the subsequent drafts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filiberto Toledano-Toledano .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Commissions of Research, Ethics and Biosafety (Comisiones de Investigación, Ética y Bioseguridad), Hospital Infantil de México Federico Gómez, National Institute of Health. HIM/2015/017/SSA.1207, “Effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress and quality of life of the family caregiver”.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bru-Luna, L.M., Martí-Vilar, M., Merino-Soto, C. et al. Person-centered care assessment tool with a focus on quality healthcare: a systematic review of psychometric properties. BMC Psychol 12 , 217 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01716-7

Download citation

Received : 17 May 2023

Accepted : 07 April 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01716-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Person-centered care assessment tool

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]