Table 2. Attributes assessed using the evaluating the measurement of patient-reported outcomes (EMPRO) tool.
| Attribute | Definition | Items included |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptual and measurement model | The rationale for and description of the concept and the populations that a measure is intended to assess and the relationship between these concepts | 1. Concept of measurement stated |
| 2. Obtaining and combining items described | ||
| 3. Rationality for dimensionality and scales | ||
| 4. Involvement of target population | ||
| 5. Scale variability described and adequate | ||
| 6. Level of measurement described | ||
| 7. Procedures for deriving scores | ||
| Reliability | The degree to which an instrument is free from random error | Internal consistency: |
| 11. Data collection methods described | ||
| 12. Cronbach’s alpha adequate (QA) | ||
| 13. IRT estimates provided | ||
| 14. Testing in different populations | ||
| Reproducibility: | ||
| 15. Data collection methods described | ||
| 16. Test–retest and time interval adequate | ||
| 17. Reproducibility coefficients adequate (QA) | ||
| 18. IRT estimates provided | ||
| Validity | The degree to which the instrument measures what it purports to measure. | 19. Content validity adequate |
| 20. Construct/criterion validity adequate | ||
| 21. Sample composition described | ||
| 22. Prior hypothesis stated (QA) | ||
| 23. Rational for criterion validity | ||
| 24. Tested in different populations | ||
| Responsiveness | An instrument’s ability to detect change over time | 25. Adequacy of methods (QA) |
| 26. Description of estimated magnitude of change | ||
| 27. Comparison of stable and unstable groups | ||
| Interpretability | The degree to which one can assign easily understood meaning to an instrument’s quantitative scores. | 28. Rational of external criteria |
| 29. Description of interpretation strategies | ||
| 30. How data should be reported stated | ||
| Burden | The time, effort, and other demands placed on those to whom the instrument is administered (respondent burden) or on those who administer the instrument (administrative burden) | Respondent: |
| 31. Skills and time needed | ||
| 32. Impact on respondents | ||
| 33. Not suitable circumstances | ||
| Administrative: | ||
| 34. Resources required | ||
| 35. Time required | ||
| 36. Training and expertise needed | ||
| 37. Burden of score calculation | ||
| Alternative modes of administration | Alternative modes of administration used for the administration of the instrument | 38. The metric characteristics and use of each alternative mode of administration |
| 39. Comparability of alternative modes of administration | ||
| Cultural adaptation | Cultural and linguistic adaptation of the instrument. | 8. Linguistic equivalence (QA) |
| 9. Conceptual equivalence | ||
| 10 Differences between the original and the adapted versions |
QA: quality assessed
The overall score of the tool gives each item values from 0 (the worst possible score) to 100 (the best possible score), resulting in an overall average score based on the attributes. The result is considered adequate if it reaches at least 50 points.