Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Criteria for evaluation of the quality of results

From: Performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash: systematic review protocol

Measurement property Rating Criteria
Structural validity + CTT CFA: CFI or TLI or comparable measure > 0.95 OR RMSEA < 0.06 OR SRMR < 0.08a
IRT/Rasch No violation of unidimensionalityb: CFI or TLI or comparable measure > 0.95 OR RMSEA < 0.06 OR SRMR < 0.08 AND no violation of local independence: residual correlations among the items after controlling for the dominant factor < 0.20 OR Q3’s < 0.37 AND no violation of monotonicity: adequate looking graphs OR item scalability > 0.30 AND adequate model fit IRT: χ2 > 0.001 Rasch: infit and outfit mean squares ≥ 0.5 and ≤ 1.5 OR Z-standardized values > − 2 and < 2
? CTT: not all information for ‘+’ reported IRT/Rasch: model fit not reported
Criteria for ‘+’ not met
Internal consistency + At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd AND Cronbach’s alpha(s) ≥ 0.70 for each unidimensional scale or subscalee
? Criteria for “At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd” not met
At least low evidencec for sufficient structural validityd AND Cronbach’s alpha(s) < 0.70 for each unidimensional scale or subscalee
Reliability + ICC or weighted Kappa ≥ 0.70
? ICC or weighted Kappa not reported
ICC or weighted Kappa < 0.70
Measurement error + SDC or LoA < MICd
? MIC not defined
SDC or LoA > MICd
Hypotheses testing for construct validity + The result is in accordance with the hypothesisf
? No hypothesis defined (by the review team)
The result is not in accordance with the hypothesisf
Cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance + No important differences found between group factors (such as age, gender, language) in multiple group factor analysis OR no important DIF for group factors (McFadden’s R2 < 0.02)
? No multiple group factor analysis OR DIF analysis performed
Important differences between group factors OR DIF was found
Criterion validity + Correlation with gold standard ≥ 0.70 OR AUC ≥ 0.70
? Not all information for ‘+’ reported
Correlation with gold standard < 0.70 OR AUC < 0.70
Responsiveness + The result is in accordance with the hypothesisf OR AUC ≥ 0.70
? No hypothesis defined (by the review team)
The result is not in accordance with the hypothesisf OR AUC < 0.70
  1. Adapted from Prinsen et al. [16] under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The criteria are updated by Prinsen et al. [16] based on, e.g., Terwee et al. [31] and Prinsen et al. [14]
  2. AUC area under the curve, CFA confirmatory factor analysis, CFI comparative fit index, CTT classical test theory, DIF differential item functioning, ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, IRT item response theory, LoA limits of agreement, MIC minimal important change, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, SEM standard error of measurement, SDC smallest detectable change, SRMR standardized root mean residuals, TLI Tucker–Lewis index, + sufficient, − insufficient, ? indeterminate
  3. aTo rate the quality of the summary score, the factor structures should be equal across studies
  4. bUnidimensionality refers to a factor analysis per subscale, while structural validity refers to a factor analysis of a (multidimensional) patient-reported outcome measure
  5. cAs defined by grading the evidence according to the GRADE approach
  6. dThis evidence may come from different studies
  7. eThe criteria “Cronbach alpha < 0.95” was deleted, as this is relevant in the development phase of a PROM and not when evaluating an existing PROM
  8. fThe results of all studies should be taken together, and it should then be decided if 75% of the results are in accordance with the hypotheses