Skip to main content

Table 2 Content validity assessment

From: Content validity and measurement properties of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale in patients with fractures of the lower extremities: a systematic review

  Development study Rating of reviewers OVERALL RATINGS QUALITY OF EVIDENCE  
Score: +  = sufficient;—= insufficient; ? = indeterminate; ±  = inconsistent  ± / ± / ?  ± / ± / ?  ± / ± / ? High, moderate, low, very low  
  consensus consensus consensus   
Relevance      
1 Are the included items relevant for the construct of interest?1 ?  +    
2 Are the included items relevant for the target population of interest?1 ?  +    
3 Are the included items relevant for the context of use of interest?1 ?  +    
4 Are the response options appropriate? ?  +    
5 Is the recall period appropriate? ?  +    
  RELEVANCE RATING (± / ± / ?) ?  +   +   
Comprehensiveness      
6 Are all key concepts included? ?  ±    
  COMPREHENSIVENESS RATING (± / ± / ?) ?  ±   ±   
Comprehensibility      
7 Are the PROM instructions understood by the population of interest as intended? ?    
8 Are the PROM items and response options understood by the population of interest as intended? ?    
9 Are the PROM items appropriately worded?    +    
10 Do the response options match the question?    +    
  COMPREHENSIBILITY RATING (± / ± / ?) ?  +   +   
  CONTENT VALIDITY RATING (± / ± / ?) ?  ±   ±  Very low
  1. 1 These criteria refer to the construct, population, and context of use of interest in the systematic review