Quality of patient- and proxy-reported outcomes for children with impairment of the upper extremity: a systematic review using the COSMIN methodology

Kalle, J. P. Ruben; Saris, Tim F. F.; Sierevelt, Inger N.; Eygendaal, Denise; van Bergen, Christiaan J. A.

doi:10.1186/s41687-022-00469-4

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Table 3 Methodological quality and ratings of measurement properties of the included PROMs

From: Quality of patient- and proxy-reported outcomes for children with impairment of the upper extremity: a systematic review using the COSMIN methodology

PROM	Ref	Measurement property	Methodological quality	Rating*
ABILHAND-Kids (Original version)	Buffart et al. [41]	Reliability	Adequate	+
		Measurement error	Adequate	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	10-/1 +
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Very good	10-/1 +
	Buffart et al. [40]	Reliability	Doubtful	+
		Measurement error	Doubtful	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	5 +
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Adequate	5 +
	De Jong et al. [42]	Reliability	Doubtful	+
		Measurement error	Doubtful	?
	Klotz et al. [48]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Doubtful	1-/1 +
	Arnould et al. [33]	PROM development	Inadequate
		Structural validity	Adequate	–
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Reliability	Doubtful	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Doubtful	2 + ^§
	Bleyenheuft et al. [23]	Responsiveness: construct approach (hypotheses testing)
		Comparison with other outcome measurement instruments	Inadequate	?
		Comparison between subgroups	Very good	?
		Before and after intervention	Doubtful	?
ABILHAND-Kids (Ukrainian version)	Hasiuk et al. [27]	Structural validity	Adequate	–
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Cross-cultural validity	Doubtful	–
ABILHAND-Kids (Danish version)	Hansen et al. [28]	Structural validity	Adequate	–
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Measurement invariance	Adequate	–
		Reliability	Very good	+
		Measurement error	Very good	?
ABILHAND-Kids (Turkish version)	Şahin et al. [29]	Structural validity	Adequate	?
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Measurement invariance	Inadequate	+
		Reliability	Doubtful	+
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Very good	2 +
ABILHAND-Kids (Arabic version)	Alnahdi et al. [30]	Structural validity	Adequate	–
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Measurement invariance	Inadequate	+
		Reliability	Inadequate	+
		Measurement error	Inadequate	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	1-/6 +
ABILHAND-Kids (Persian version)	Mohammadkhani-Pordanjani et al. [31]	Structural validity	Doubtful	+
		Internal consistency	Very good	+
		Cross-cultural validity	Inadequate	–
		Measurement invariance	Inadequate	+
		Reliability	Inadequate	+
		Measurement error	Inadequate	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Doubtful	1 +
ChARM	Preston et al. [36]	PROM development	Inadequate
		Structural validity	Adequate	–
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Doubtful	1 +
CHEQ	Ryll et al. [49]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	2 +
	Amer et al. [37]	Structural validity	Adequate	?
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Reliability	Doubtful	+
	Sköld et al. [34]	PROM development	Doubtful
		Structural validity	Doubtful	?
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
CHQ	Squitieri et al. [50]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Inadequate	?
CHSQ (Original version)	Chien et al. [38]	Structural validity	Adequate	?
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Cross-cultural validity	Inadequate	–
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	2-/5 +
CHSQ (Turkish version)	Gün et al. [32]	Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Reliability	Doubtful	+
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	1 +
DHI	Sanal-Top et al. [43]	Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Reliability	Inadequate	+
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	?
HUH	Van der Holst et al. [44]	Reliability	Doubtful	+
		Measurement error	Doubtful	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Very good	5 +
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Very good	5 +
	Geerdink et al. [35]	PROM development	Doubtful
		Structural validity	Adequate	?
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Doubtful	2 +
IMAL	Carey et al. [51]	Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Reliability	Doubtful	?
		Measurement error	Doubtful	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Adequate	?
PEDI self-care domain	Ho et al. [52]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity
		OBPP versus peers	Doubtful	1-/1 +
		OBPP with hand impairment versus OBPP without hand impairment	Adequate	1-/1 +
PODCI	Huffman et al. [53]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Doubtful	5 +
	Bae et al. [54]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Doubtful	?/6 +
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Doubtful	?/6 +
	Dedini et al. [24]	Responsiveness: construct approach
		Before and after intervention	Inadequate	2-/4 +
	Squitieri et al. [50]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Inadequate	?
	Wall et al. [55]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Inadequate	?
PODCI (v2.0; Original version)	Kunkel et al. [25]	Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Doubtful	?
		Responsiveness: construct approach
		Before and after intervention	Inadequate	?
PODCI (v2.0; Dutch version)	Van der Holst et al. [26]	Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Reliability	Inadequate	–
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	2 +
		Responsiveness: construct approach
		Before and after intervention	Inadequate	?
PROMIS – Upper Extremity item bank (short form)	Waljee et al. [56]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	3 +
PROMIS – Upper Extremity item bank (CAT)	Waljee et al. [56]	Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Adequate	3 +
QuickDASH	Quatman-Yates et al. [57]	Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: convergent validity	Doubtful	1 +
Revised PMAL	Wallen et al. [39]	Structural validity	Doubtful	?
		Internal consistency	Very good	?
		Reliability	Doubtful	+
		Hypotheses testing for construct validity: discriminative validity	Doubtful	2 +

ChARM = Children’s Arm Rehabilitation Measure, CHEQ = Children's Hand-use Experience Questionnaire, CHQ = Child Health Questionnaire, CHSQ = Children’s Hand-Skills ability Questionnaire, DHI = Duruöz Hand Index, HUH = Hand-Use-at-Home questionnaire, IMAL = Infant Motor Activity Log, PEDI = Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory, PODCI = Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument, PROMIS = Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, CAT = computer-adaptive test, DASH = Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, PMAL = Pediatric Motor Activity Log
^*The result of each study on a measurement property of a PROM was rated against the updated criteria for good measurement properties: – = insufficient; + = sufficient; ? = indeterminate
^§Number of hypotheses tested (2) and if the hypotheses were confirmed ( +) or rejected (-) in the study

Back to article page