Table 2 Content validity assessment
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 |