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