|
Quality Analysis (Adapted) Outcome Measures Rating Form CanChild Centre for Disability Research, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, McMaster University. |
||
|
CLINICAL UTILITY |
Clarity of Instructions |
□ Excellent (clear, comprehensive, concise, and available) □ Adequate (clear, concise, but lacks some information) □ Poor (not clear and concise or not available) |
|
|
||
|
SCALE CONSTRUCTION |
Item Selection |
□ Excellent (included all relevant characteristics of attribute based on comprehensive review and survey of experts) □ Adequate (included most relevant characteristics of attribute) □ Poor (convenient sample of characteristics of attribute, or questionnaire not available) |
|
STANDARDIZATION |
Manual |
□ Excellent: published manual which outlines specific procedures for administration; scoring and interpretation; evidence of reliability and validity □ Adequate: manual available and generally complete but some information is lacking or unclear regarding administration; scoring and interpretation; evidence of reliability and validity □ Poor: no manual available or manual with unclear administration; scoring and interpretation; no evidence of reliability and validity |
|
|
||
|
RELIABILITY |
Rigor of standardization studies for reliability |
□ Excellent: > 2 well-designed reliability studies completed with adequate to excellent reliability □ Adequate: 1 to 2 well-designed reliability studies completed with adequate to excellent reliability □ Poor: reliability studies poorly completed, or reliability studies showing poor levels of reliability □ No evidence available |
|
|
||
|
Reliability Information |
Type of Reliability Statistic Used Value Rating (excellent, adequate or poor) NB Excellent: > .80 Adequate:.60 -.79, Poor: < .60 |
|
|
|
||
|
VALIDITY |
Rigor of standardization studies for validity |
□ Excellent: more than 2 well-designed validity studies supporting the measure's validity □ Adequate: 1 to 2 well-designed validity studies supporting the measure's validity □ Poor: validity studies poorly completed or did not support the measure's validity □ No evidence available |
|
|
||
|
Content Validity |
□ Excellent: judgmental or statistical method (e.g. factor analysis) was used the measure is comprehensive and includes items suited to the measurement purpose Method: □ judgmental □ statistical □ Adequate: has content validity but no specific method was used □ Poor: instrument is not comprehensive □ No evidence available |
|
|
|
||
|
Construct Validity |
□ Excellent: more than 2 well designed studies have shown that the instrument conforms to prior theoretical relationships among characteristics or individuals □ Adequate: 1 to 2 studies demonstrate confirmation of theoretical formulations □ Poor: construct validation poorly completed, or did not support measure's construct validity □ No evidence available |
|
|
|
||
|
Criterion Validity |
□ Concurrent □ Predictive Criterion Measure used: □ Excellent: > 2 well-designed studies showing adequate agreement with a criterion or gold standard □ Adequate: 1-2 studies demonstrate adequate agreement with a criterion or gold standard measure □ Poor: criterion validation poorly completed or did not support measure's criterion validity □ No evidence available |
|
|
|
||
|
RESPONSIVENESS |
□ Excellent: more than 2 well-designed studies showing strong hypothesized relationships between changes on the measure and other measures of change on the same attribute. □ Adequate: 1-2 studies of responsiveness □ Poor: studies of responsiveness poorly completed or did not support the measure's responsiveness □ No evidence available |
|
|
|
||
|
OVERALL UTILITY |
□ Excellent: adequate to excellent clinical utility, easily available, excellent reliability and validity □ Adequate: adequate to excellent clinical utility, easily available, adequate to excellent reliability and adequate to excellent validity □ Poor: poor clinical utility, not easily available, poor reliability and validity |
|
|
|
||
|
Carlon et al. BMC Pediatrics 2010 10:81 doi:10.1186/1471-2431-10-81 |
||
