Skip to main content

Table 6 Summary of measurement properties of questionnaires

From: Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures

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
  1. RoB Risk of bias
  2. a Assessed according to the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist [23,24,25]: each measurement property was assigned a rating of “very good”, “adequate”, “doubtful”, “inadequate” or “not applicable”
  3. b Psychometric properties were rated according to the updated criteria for good measurement properties based on Terwee et al. [14] and Prinsen et al. [30]. (Annex B) Ratings can be:“+” = sufficient,” – “= insufficient, “?” = indeterminate, or “+/” inconsistent
  4. c Recommendations: A: Have the potential to be recommended as the most suitable questionnaire fo the construct and population of interest;B: May have the potential to be recommended, but further validation studies are needed; C:Should not be recommended
  5. *In case the overall rating is indeterminate (?), it is not possible to judge the quality of the instrument, and there is no grading of the quality of the evidence [23]