Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Protocol

Measurement properties of self-report pedestrians’ road crossing behavior questionnaires constructed based on the theory of planned behavior: protocol for a systematic review

Authors: Mahdi Moshki, Abdoljavad Khajavi, Fatemeh Sadeghi-Ghyassi, Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani, Saeid Pour-Doulati

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pedestrians’ unsafe crossing behavior exposes them at risk of trauma and death and puts a tremendous burden on the health care system. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is one of the leading theoretical models used to develop pedestrians’ road crossing behavior questionnaires, yet the quality of measurement properties of them has not been evaluated. The aim of the proposed systematic review is to evaluate the quality of measurement properties of the questionnaires constructed based on the TPB to predict pedestrians’ road crossing behavior.

Methods

We will include studies validating or evaluating one or more psychometric properties of the self-reported questionnaire employing the TPB for predicting pedestrians’ road crossing behavior. A comprehensive search strategy will be formulated based on the components of review aim. The databases of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, and ProQuest, also grey literature and the reference lists of the included studies, will be searched. A hand search for the relevant journals and Google Scholar will be conducted. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist will be used to evaluate the measurement properties of the included questionnaires. First, we will assess standards for the methodological quality of each study. Then, each scale or subscale of a questionnaire will be rated using the updated criteria for good measurement property. We will quantitatively pool or qualitatively summarize the results and will evaluate them against the criteria for good measurement properties. Finally, we will grade the pooled or summarized evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach and provide recommendations for the most appropriate instrument.

Discussion

The proposed systematic review will evaluate the measurement properties of self-report pedestrians’ road crossing behavior questionnaires constructed based on the TPB. The findings will help researchers in selecting the appropriate TPB-based instrument for pedestrians’ road crossing behavior.

Systematic review registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Stoker P, Adkins A, Ewing R. Pedestrian safety and public health. In: Walking. edn. p. 211–29.
2.
Chakravarthy B, Lotfipour S, Vaca FE. Pedestrian injuries: emergency care considerations. Cal J Emerg Med. 2007;8(1):15.PubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Organization WH: Pedestrian safety: a road safety manual for decision-makers and practitioners. 2013.
4.
WHO: Global status report on road safety 2018. 2018.
5.
Ding T, Wang S, Xi J, Zheng L, Wang Q. Psychology-based research on unsafe behavior by pedestrians when crossing the street. Adv Mech Eng. 2015;7(1):203867.CrossRef
6.
Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, Mohan D, Hyder AA, Jarawan E, Mathers CD. World report on road traffic injury prevention. In: World Health Organization Geneva; 2004.
7.
United Nations: Improving global road safety, resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 15 April 2016. 2016.
8.
Sminkey ML. Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. In: World Health Organization www who int/roadsafety/decade_of_action; 2011.
9.
Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol. 2010;29(1):1.CrossRef
10.
Webb T, Joseph J, Yardley L, Michie S. Using the internet to promote health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e4.CrossRef
11.
Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K: Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice, 4th edn: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
12.
Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(4):673.CrossRef
13.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179–211.CrossRef
14.
Francis JJ, Johnston M, Eccles MP, Grimshaw J, Kaner EF. Measurement issues in the theory of planned behaviour: a supplement to the manual for constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. Newcastle: Centre for Health Services Research; 2004.
15.
Epton T, Norman P, Harris P, Webb T, Snowsill FA, Sheeran P: Development of theory-based health messages: three-phase programme of formative research. Health promotion international 2014:dau005.
16.
Dıaz EM. Theory of planned behavior and pedestrians’ intentions to violate traffic regulations. Transport Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav. 2002;5(3):169–75.CrossRef
17.
Evans D, Norman P. Understanding pedestrians’ road crossing decisions: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Health Educ Res. 1998;13(4):481–9.CrossRef
18.
Evans D, Norman P. Predicting adolescent pedestrians’ road-crossing intentions: an application and extension of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Health Educ Res. 2003;18(3):267–77.CrossRef
19.
Holland C, Hill R. The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians’ intentions to cross the road in risky situations. Accid Anal Prev. 2007;39(2):224–37.CrossRef
20.
Holland C, Hill R. Gender differences in factors predicting unsafe crossing decisions in adult pedestrians across the lifespan: a simulation study. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42(4):1097–106.CrossRef
21.
Zhou H, Romero SB, Qin X. An extension of the theory of planned behavior to predict pedestrians’ violating crossing behavior using structural equation modeling. Accid Anal Prev. 2015.
22.
Zhou R, Horrey WJ. Predicting adolescent pedestrians’ behavioral intentions to follow the masses in risky crossing situations. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour. 2010;13(3):153–63.CrossRef
23.
Zhou R, Horrey WJ, Yu R. The effect of conformity tendency on pedestrians’ road-crossing intentions in China: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Accid Anal Prev. 2009;41(3):491–7.CrossRef
24.
Wang L, Gou J, Zou Q. The Analysis of Pedestrian Violations Based on the Revised TPB (Theory of Planned Behavior). In: LISS 2013. edn.: Springer; 2015: 1181-1186.
25.
Ajzen I. Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations; 2002.
26.
Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, Kaner EF, Smith L, Bonetti D. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. In: A manual for health services researchers; 2004.
27.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach: Taylor & Francis; 2011.
28.
Conner M, Norman P. Predicting health behaviour: McGraw-Hill Education (UK; 2005.
29.
Godin G, Kok G. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):87–98.CrossRef
30.
Jalilian M, Mostafavi F, Mahaki B, Delpisheh A, Rad GS. An application of a theory of planned behaviour to determine the association between behavioural intentions and safe road-crossing in college students: perspective from Isfahan, Iran. JPMA. 2015;65(7):742–6.
31.
Prinsen CA, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, De Vet HC, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.CrossRef
32.
Oluka OC, Nie S, Sun Y. Quality assessment of TPB-based questionnaires: a systematic review. PloS One. 2014;9(4):e94419.CrossRef
33.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1):1.CrossRef
34.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen C, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink L. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). User Manual. 2018;78:1.
35.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. COSMIN checklist manual. Amsterdam: University Medical Center; 2012.
36.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.CrossRef
37.
Mokkink LB, De Vet HC, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, Terwee CB. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qua Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.CrossRef
38.
Terwee CB, Prinsen C, Chiarotto A, de Vet H, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Mokkink LB: COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs–user manual. 2018.
Metadata
Title
Measurement properties of self-report pedestrians’ road crossing behavior questionnaires constructed based on the theory of planned behavior: protocol for a systematic review
Authors
Mahdi Moshki
Abdoljavad Khajavi
Fatemeh Sadeghi-Ghyassi
Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani
Saeid Pour-Doulati
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1121-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Systematic Reviews 1/2019 Go to the issue

Protocol

The effects of exercise on cardiometabolic outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome not taking the oral contraceptive pill: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research

The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

Research

A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

Protocol

Risk of major bleeding during extended oral anticoagulation in patients with first unprovoked venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Commentary

Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems

Protocol

Study protocol: Worldwide comparison of vitamin D status of immigrants from different ethnic origins and native-born populations—a systematic review and meta-analysis