Table 6 Summary of measurement properties of questionnaires
Questionnaire | Context of use | Measurement property | Methodolo-gical qualitya | Ratingb | Quality of Evidence | Recommen-dationc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSSQP32 | Screening colonoscopy | Content validity | Doubtful | (+) Based on review ratings. Development and validation study not provide enough information to judge relevance, comprehensiveness or comprehensibility | Moderate Serious RoB (content validity and development study of doubtful quality) | A |
Structural validity | Adequate | (?) A confirmatory factor analysis was not conducted | * | |||
Internal consistency | Very good | (+) Cronbach’s alpha 0.86 (≥0.7) Spearman-Brown coefficient 0.85 | High No RoB | |||
Construct validity | Very good | (?) No hypothesis defined | High No RoB | |||
Patient Satisfaction Scale with Bowel Preparation33 | Bowel preparation | Content validity | Doubtful | (−) Relevance doubtful, comprehensiveness (−) and comprehensibility (−) as patients and professionals were not asked | Low Very serious RoB (no content validity study, development study of doubtful quality) | B |
Internal consistency | Doubtful | (+) Cronbach’s alpha 0.79 (≥0.70) | Low Very serious RoB (one study of doubtful quality) | |||
Construct validity | Doubtful | (?) Results in accordance with hypothesis, associated with narra-tives, but no correlations calculated | * | |||
Post-procedure questionnaire35 | Upper and lower endoscopy | Content validity | Doubtful | (+) Relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility were (+) | Low Serious RoB (content validity and development study of doubtful quality) and indirectness | A |
Structural validity | Adequate | (?) No results of exploratory factor analysis | * | |||
Internal consistency | Very good | (+) Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.7 for 4 of 8 items analyzed | Low Serious RoB (one study of adequate quality) and indirectness | |||
SmGHAA-9 m34 | Upper and lower endoscopy | Content validity | Inadequate | (−) Relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility rated (−) | Very low Serious RoB (no content validity study and development study of inadequate quality). Indirectness | B |
Internal consistency | Doubtful | (+) Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.7 | Very low Very serious RoB (one study of doubtful quality) and indirectness | |||
Reliability | Inadequate | (+) Weighted kappa of 0.78 | Very low Extremely serious RoB (one study of inadequate quality) and indirectness | |||
Screening Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Assessment Questionnaire36 | Screening sigmoidoscopy | Content validity | Doubtful | (+/−) Relevance (+) by reviewers, comprehensiveness (−) and comprehensibility (+/−) | Low Serious RoB (content validity and development studies of doubtful quality) and indirectness | B |
Structural validity | Adequate | (?) Comparative fit index, Tucker-Lewis index, Root Mean Square Error of approximation or Standardized root mean residuals not reported | * | |||
Internal consistency | Very good | (+) Cronbach’s alpha 0.87 for overall satisfaction and 0.84 for pain and discomfort scale | Moderate No serious RoB but indirectness | |||
Reliability | Adequate | (+) Pearson correlation coefficient 0.82 (≥0.7) | Low Serious RoB (only one study of adequate quality) and indirectness | |||
Measurement error | Adequate | (?) Minimal important change not defined | * | |||
Construct validity | Very good | (?) Results in accordance with hypothesis and associated with narratives, but no correlations calculated | * | |||
Responsiveness | Very good | (+) responses in accordance to narratives | Moderate No RoB but indirectness |