Table 4.
Summary of content development quality analysis for fatigue PRO instruments
| Construct, n (%) | Conceptual framework, n (%) | Target population, n (%) | Context of use, n (%) | Development sample, n (%) | Qualitative work, n (%) | Literature review, n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good (3) | 1 (6%) | 2 (11%) | 4 (22%) | 11 (61%) | 2 (11%) | 4 (22%) | 1 (6%) |
| Adequate (2) | 1 (6%) | 5 (28%) | 8 (44%) | 2 (11%) | 2 (11%) | 1 (6%) | 1 (6%) |
| Doubtful (1) | 9 (50%) | 6 (33%) | 3 (17%) | 5 (28%) | 4 (22%) | 3 (17%) | 0 |
| Poor/none (0) | 7 (39%) | 5 (28%) | 3 (17%) | 0 | 10 (56%) | 10 (56%) | 16 (89%) |
Proportions in each column may not sum to 100% as a result of rounding
PROs patient-reported outcomes