Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality of methods and results of psychometric studies

From: Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review

Instrument/abbreviation Associated papers Measurement property Result Quality rating of results Quality rating of methods
Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) Sofaer et al. [48] Content validity Patients considered other aspects of hospital care which appear to have not been included Negative Poor
  Keller et al. [26] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha 0.70 Positive Excellent
  Keller et al. [26] Reliability ICC 0.70 Positive Excellent
  Keller et al. [26] Structural validity 7 categorises for 16 items. Factor loadings 0.57–91. Uniqueness of error reported Indeterminate Excellent
  O’Malley [36] Measurement error Correlation between same composites different services Indeterminate Good
Surgery 0.76
Obstetrics 0.73
Medical 0.85
Quality from the Patients' Perspective (QPP) Wilde et al. [56] Content validity 35 patient interviews—development of relevant questionnaire Positive Excellent
  Wilde et al. [55] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha 0.80 Positive Excellent
  Wilde et al. [55] Content validity High patient ratings of item clarity and comprehensiveness Positive Excellent
  Wilde et al. [55] Structural validity Factor solutions Positive Good
Medical/technical competence 50.4 %
Physical/technical conditions 44.8 %
Identity-orientated approach 66.9 %
Socio-cultural atmosphere 65.8 %
  Wilde et al. [55] Criterion validity Correlation between long and short version in their entirety was 0.90 Positive Poor
  Larsson et al. [28] Structural validity RMSEA of 0.050 was obtained indicating the model was an acceptable fit Indeterminate Good
Quality from the Patients' Perspective Shortened (QPPS) Larsson et al. [27] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha 0.74 for overall scale Positive Excellent
  Larsson et al. [27] Criterion validity Pearson correlation coefficients all results statistically significant 0.0025 when Bonferroni corrections made Positive Excellent
Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire(PPE-15) Jenkinson et al. [25] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha 0.8 Positive Good
  Jenkinson et al. [24] Internal consistency 0.89 for 4 pages Positive Excellent
0.87 for 12 pages
  Reeves et al. [42] Content validity Focus groups, cognitive testing, amendments—research did not identify any missing items from patients’ perspective Positive Excellent
  Jenkinson et al. [25] Criterion validity Correlations between short and long version between 0.93 (P < 0.001) and 0.95 (P < 0.001) Positive Good
  Jenkinson et al. [24] Hypothesis testing Item correlations were above recommended levels for all PPE items in both survey versions (0.37–0.61) Positive Excellent
NHS Inpatient Survey (NHSIP) Boyd [6] Content validity Tested and modified with group of inpatients Positive Excellent
  Sizmur and Redding [47] Internal consistency Item correlations given but Cronbach’s alpha not reported Indeterminate Fair
Scottish Inpatient Patient Experience Survey (SIPES) Scottish Government [45] Content validity Extensive work with patient groups: survey, focus groups, stakeholder consultations, cognitive testing. Findings, the patient found the items relevant and comprehensive Positive Excellent
  Scottish Government [45] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha over 0.70 for each survey section Positive Poor
Hong Kong Inpatient Experience Questionnaire (HKIEQ) Hospital Authority [22] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha 0.75 for overall scale Positive Fair
  Hospital Authority [22] Reliability Intraclass correlation 0.42–0.96 and test re-test 0.78 Positive Fair
  Hospital Authority [22] Content validity Participants found the questionnaire to be clear, understandable, and appropriate Positive Excellent
  Hospital Authority [22] Structural validity 17 factors explained 74 % of the variance Positive Fair
  Wong et al. [59] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha 0.75 for overall scale Positive Fair
  Wong et al. [59] Structural validity 18 factors explained 75.5 % of the variance Positive Fair
  Hospital Authority [22] Cross-cultural validity Translated but not cross-culturally validated Indeterminate Fair
Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ) Pettersen et al. [39] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha greater than 0.70 for overall scale Positive Fair
  Pettersen et al. [39] Reliability Test re-test 0.62–0.85 with ICC exceeding 0.7 Positive Fair
  Pettersen et al. [39] Content validity Grouped more than 600 m written comments and held focus groups with previous inpatients to ensure relevant and sufficient items were covered Positive Good
  Pettersen et al. [39] Structural validity 20 items, 6 factors accounted for 67 % total variance Positive Excellent
  Pettersen et al. [39] Hypothesis testing Associations between rating scale and external measures, i.e. gender, age, fulfilment of expectations. Only mean differences computed Indeterminate Poor
Norwegian Patient Experience Questionnaire (NORPEQ) Oltedal [37] Internal consistency Item correlation 0.59–0.71 and Cronbach’s alpha 0.85 Positive Fair
  Oltedal [37] Reliability Intraclass correlation 0.45–0.79 and test re-test 0.88 Positive Good
  Oltedal [37] Content validity Patient interviews found questions and scaling easy to understand and all relevant questions covered Positive Good
  Oltedal [37] Structural validity 6 items explained 57.7 % variance Positive Good
  Oltedal [37] Construct validity Hypothesised scales scores would correlate 0.6–0.8 with satisfaction (correlation significant, range from high to low) Positive Good
Scale scores would correlate 0.4–0.6 perceptions of incorrect treatment (moderate result)
Scores would correlate 0.1–0.3 with patient health and physical health. (Result 0.19–0.27)
Patient Experiences with Inpatient Care (I-PAHC) Webster et al. [53] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha >0.78 Positive Excellent
  Webster et al. [53] Content validity Focus groups, revisions by stakeholders, translated, cognitively tested and patient groups reported clear questions covering all aspects important to them Positive Excellent
  Webster et al. [53] Structural validity Kept if item loadings greater than 0.40. Variance not reported Indeterminate Excellent
  Webster et al. [53] Construct validity 5 factors with loadings 0.48–0.86. Results in accordance with priori hypothesis Positive Excellent
  Webster et al. [53] Cross-cultural validity Translation done but not empirically tested Indeterminate Fair
Patient Perceptions of Quality (PPQ) Rao et al. [41] Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha >0.70 Positive Excellent
  Rao et al. [41] Content validity Questionnaire devised from qualitative interviews with patients Positive Excellent
  Rao et al. [41] Structural validity 5 dimensions explained 73 % variance Positive Excellent