BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, schools had to switch online. The sudden transition to blended teaching and learning (BTL) poses challenges for students and teachers, especially for health science programs that require hands-on practical experience. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these self-report questionnaires (SRQs) should be established to ensure the accuracy of the results as intended by the SRQ.

This study critically appraised, compared, and summarized the psychometric properties of SRQ evaluating BTL among health science university students. This review determined the SRQ’s reliability, internal consistency, various forms of validity (content, criterion, construct), and responsiveness.

Following a 10-step procedure based on COSMIN guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of SRQs used by health science university students to evaluate blended teaching and learning. Studies were eligible if they reported psychometric properties of SRQs related to blended learning among university health science students; exclusions included studies focusing on perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and satisfaction, as well as articles such as biographies, editorials, and conference materials. Searches covered multiple electronic databases until April 26, 2023, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OVID), PsycInfo, CINAHL, EBSCOHOST, ERIC, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Acta Medica Philippina, Philippine Journal of Health Research and Development, and HERDIN, managed through Zotero. Two independent reviewers performed database searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text evaluations, with a third reviewer resolving any disputes. The COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist was employed to evaluate included studies on the development and various measurement properties of SRQs. The reviewers assessed SRQ standards, including validity, reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, responsiveness, interpretability, and feasibility. Data extraction and result tabulation were independently completed, with content comparison by two health education experts. This evaluation categorized the SRQs into three quality and validity levels.

The study examined five articles; four were rated as 'doubtful' and one as 'inadequate' in the overall development of SRQ. All four 'doubtful' studies demonstrated questionable content validity when university students were asked about the questionnaire's relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. Only half of these studies achieved an 'adequate' rating for content validity based on expert opinions on relevance and comprehensiveness. All but one study scored from 'very good' to 'adequate' in structural validity. Three out of the four studies scored a very good rating for internal consistency, while one was deemed 'inadequate' in internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, and reliability. Three out of four studies scored 'very good' on construct validity, but all overlooked criterion validity and responsiveness. Conducted in various locations, including Australia, Romania, Turkey, and Taiwan, these studies highlighted both common characteristics and limitations in questionnaire development according to the COSMIN guidelines. Four studies were deemed reliable and valid for BTL constructs (Category A); Wu et al. requires further validation (Category B). Study limitations included heterogeneity in populations, settings, and questionnaire versions, potential subjective bias in SRQ content comparison, and the evolving nature of SRQs in blended learning contexts.

The systematic review reports the development and evaluation of SRQs for BTL while identifying gaps in their applicability to health science programs. The Blended Learning Scale (BLS) of Lazar et al. and the Blended Learning Questionnaire (BLQ) of Ballouk et al. showed an ‘adequate' rating for content validity. BLS revealed very good structural validity, internal consistency, and adequate content validation. Although the BLQ lacked Confirmatory Factor Analysis, it yielded valuable constructs for evaluating health sciences students' experiences in BTL. Both tools require improvements on recall period, completion time, interpretability, and feasibility. The review underscores the necessity for cont inuous assessment and enhancement of such instruments in BTL, advocating a rigorous scale development process. Furthermore, it encourages the customization of teaching and learning evaluation tools to suit specific institutional contexts while promoting further validation of these questionnaires across different populations in future research.

BACKGROUND

Walking is widely recognized for its benefits in pain management, disability reduction, and psychological well-being, primarily due to its cost-effectiveness and accessibility. However, comprehensive qualitative insights into the full extent of its benefits remain insufficient. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) significantly impairs daily activities, requiring a multifaceted intervention approach, as advocated by the Biopsychosocial (BPS) model and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework.

This systematic review aims to evaluate the perceptions and experiences related to walking among adults suffering from CLBP, understand the barriers and facilitators influencing walking behaviors, analyze behavioral patterns, and examine internal motivators for walking.

This systematic review will include both published and unpublished qualitative studies with participants aged >18 with CLBP persisting > 3 months, where walking is utilized as the primary or secondary intervention. Databases, including PubMed, EBSCO Host, Science Direct, ProQuest, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science, will be searched without language or year restrictions. The screening will involve an independent dual review of the title/abstract and full texts, followed by a critical appraisal. Data extraction and synthesis will employ a meta-aggregation approach, with findings assessed via the ConQual approach.

Synthesized findings will guide evidence-based practice. Recommendations will provide actionable insights to address gaps in qualitative research on walking, promoting a holistic, patient-centered approach to treatment.

CRD42024509069.

BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, schools had to switch online. The sudden transition to blended teaching and learning (BTL) poses challenges for students and teachers, especially for health science programs that require hands-on practical experience. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these self-report questionnaires (SRQs) should be established to ensure the accuracy of the results as intended by the SRQ.

This study critically appraised, compared, and summarized the psychometric properties of SRQ evaluating BTL among health science university students. This review determined the SRQ’s reliability, internal consistency, various forms of validity (content, criterion, construct), and responsiveness.

Following a 10-step procedure based on COSMIN guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of SRQs used by health science university students to evaluate blended teaching and learning. Studies were eligible if they reported psychometric properties of SRQs related to blended learning among university health science students; exclusions included studies focusing on perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and satisfaction, as well as articles such as biographies, editorials, and conference materials. Searches covered multiple electronic databases until April 26, 2023, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE (OVID), PsycInfo, CINAHL, EBSCOHOST, ERIC, Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Acta Medica Philippina, Philippine Journal of Health Research and Development, and HERDIN, managed through Zotero. Two independent reviewers performed database searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text evaluations, with a third reviewer resolving any disputes. The COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist was employed to evaluate included studies on the development and various measurement properties of SRQs. The reviewers assessed SRQ standards, including validity, reliability, internal consistency, measurement error, responsiveness, interpretability, and feasibility. Data extraction and result tabulation were independently completed, with content comparison by two health education experts. This evaluation categorized the SRQs into three quality and validity levels.

The study examined five articles; four were rated as 'doubtful' and one as 'inadequate' in the overall development of SRQ. All four 'doubtful' studies demonstrated questionable content validity when university students were asked about the questionnaire's relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. Only half of these studies achieved an 'adequate' rating for content validity based on expert opinions on relevance and comprehensiveness. All but one study scored from 'very good' to 'adequate' in structural validity. Three out of the four studies scored a very good rating for internal consistency, while one was deemed 'inadequate' in internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, and reliability. Three out of four studies scored 'very good' on construct validity, but all overlooked criterion validity and responsiveness. Conducted in various locations, including Australia, Romania, Turkey, and Taiwan, these studies highlighted both common characteristics and limitations in questionnaire development according to the COSMIN guidelines. Four studies were deemed reliable and valid for BTL constructs (Category A); Wu et al. requires further validation (Category B). Study limitations included heterogeneity in populations, settings, and questionnaire versions, potential subjective bias in SRQ content comparison, and the evolving nature of SRQs in blended learning contexts.

The systematic review reports the development and evaluation of SRQs for BTL while identifying gaps in their applicability to health science programs. The Blended Learning Scale (BLS) of Lazar et al. and the Blended Learning Questionnaire (BLQ) of Ballouk et al. showed an ‘adequate' rating for content validity. BLS revealed very good structural validity, internal consistency, and adequate content validation. Although the BLQ lacked Confirmatory Factor Analysis, it yielded valuable constructs for evaluating health sciences students' experiences in BTL. Both tools require improvements on recall period, completion time, interpretability, and feasibility. The review underscores the necessity for cont inuous assessment and enhancement of such instruments in BTL, advocating a rigorous scale development process. Furthermore, it encourages the customization of teaching and learning evaluation tools to suit specific institutional contexts while promoting further validation of these questionnaires across different populations in future research.

Background: Hamstring strain injury (HSI) is the most common cause of missing practices and sporting events among running-related athletes. The incidence rate of recurrence in individuals with HSI ranges from 12% to 63%. While various risk factors for HSI have been identified, the alterations and role of biomechanical factors as potential causes of injury have been largely overlooked. Objectives: To report the critical biomechanical parameters assessed among running-related athletes with a recurrent HSI and to present common testing protocols in assessing the biomechanical parameters among running-related athletes with a recurrent HSI. Methods: Eligibility Criteria: Included studies investigated biomechanical parameters assessed among collegiate or elite running-related athletes with recurrent HSI. Sources of Evidence: This scoping review was registered in OSF and was conducted based on PRISMA-ScR. Six electronic databases were systematically searched from 1993 to May 2022. Charting Methods: The reviewers created a data charting tool for the scoping review. Results: Out of 874 articles, a total of 10 articles were included in the scoping review. The critical biomechanical parameters assessed include trunk flexion, hip flexion, and knee extension angles (kinematic variables), flight and stance times and velocity (spatiotemporal variables), and EMG activity of biceps femoris, semitendinosus, semimembranosus, vastus lateralis, and rectus femoris, knee flexion and extension angle peak joint torque (kinetic variables). The most common running test protocols used were the 30-meter overground repeated sprint test, a percentage of maximum running velocity (treadmill), and repeated sprints on a non-motorized treadmill. The most common protocols for isokinetic muscle testing were 60 degrees (concentric), 300 degrees (concentric), and 180 degrees (eccentric) per second angular velocities. Conclusion The review demonstrated a need for more research on this topic, leading to only limited biomechanical parameters being discussed in the literature. This underscores the need for more rigorous research that could have practical applications for athletes and coaches.
Biomechanical Phenomena ; Athletes

Objective: Our study aims to establish interrater reliability in performing the step-by-step procedure of selected pain provocation tests for hamstrings and special tests for lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries. Study Design: An interrater reliability study Setting: University of Santo Tomas - Sports Science Laboratory Participants: Ten healthy adults (five females, five males; age = 22.2 ± 0.42) from the university community. Main outcome measures: Interrater reliability of performing step-by-step procedures for selected pain provocation tests for hamstrings (painful resisted knee flexion 90°, painful resisted knee flexion 30°, active slump test, Puranen-Orava Test, bent knee stretch) and special tests for lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries (Lachman’s test, McMurray’s test, posterior drawer test, valgus, and varus stress test). Results: Fleiss kappa showed perfect agreement (κ = 1.00) for all test procedures except for Lachman’s test procedure 1 (κ= -0.11 [95% CI, -0.36 to 0.14]), active slump test procedure 4 (κ= -0.03 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.23]), active slump test procedure 5 (κ= -0.11 [95% CI, -0.28 to 0.23]), and active slump test procedure 6 (κ= -0.05 [95% CI, -0.31 to 0.20]), which resulted in negative agreements. Conclusions The researcher developed protocols for each special and provocative test were consistent in measuring the intended procedures, and the raters were generally consistent with their ability to measure these tests.

INTRODUCTION: Martial arts, other than Tai chi, are now being integrated into exercise programs to improve the balance control of older adults. This scoping review aims to describe the extent, range, and nature of available literature on martial arts use to improve balance control in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will adhere to the steps described in the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Studies on martial arts use, aside from Tai chi, in improving balance in older adults are eligible. Only experimental studies written in English will be included. Literature search on published articles from inception to February 2021 will be conducted in ScienceDirect, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Medline, and ProQuest. Grey literature search will be implemented in Google Scholar, Pro-Quest Dissertations and Theses Open, University of Santo Tomas Library. Handsearching for additional articles from reference lists of included studies will also be performed. Data on author and year of publication, country, study design, target population, type of martial art, exercise protocol, balance outcome measures used, and main findings will be extracted from the included studies. ETHICS AND DESSIMINATION: This protocol describes the rigorous process that will be implemented to map the breadth of existing literature on martial arts use in improving the balance control of older adults. Ethical approval is not required because only information from publicly accessible sources will be collected. Review findings will be disseminated through publications and presentations in local and international conferences and shared with relevant agencies and societies. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION This protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/vez68.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and discriminant validity of the Filipino Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (F-KOOS) among community-dwellers with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The study also examined the suitability of the F-KOOS in terms of relevance and ease of understanding Methods: This psychometric study utilized a cross-sectional design. Participants (>50 years old) with knee pain and soreness were recruited from the community and were medically diagnosed with knee OA according to the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria. Participants were instructed to report for two sessions approximately two weeks apart. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics of participants and suitability in answering F-KOOS. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Cronbach alpha, respectively. Discriminant validity was examined by comparing those with and without knee OA using independent t-test (p<0.05) per F-KOOS subscale. Results and Discussion: A total of 53 participants (35 females, 18 males) with a mean age of 69.67+5.83 years old were included in the study. The domains of the KOOS in the pre-test and re-test range from 0.30 to 0.78 (p<0.05), indicating good test-retest reliability between two assessment points. All domains of the F-KOOS had high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha of > 0.7) ranging from 0.87 to 0.96. Discriminant validity of all domains of F-KOOS between participants diagnosed with and without knee OA showed p-values <0.01 which indicate a significant difference between both groups. In terms of preference, out of 40 participants who answered the survey, 55-85% expressed ease and satisfaction in answering F-KOOS. Conclusion The study demonstrated that the F-KOOS has an acceptable test-retest reliability, good internal consistency, and discriminant validity in individuals with knee OA. The study further determined that the use of the F-KOOS is appropriate, relevant, and easy to understand in the community setting.
Osteoarthritis, Knee ; Outcome Assessment, Health Care