Table 3.
Scoring of psychometric measures of transition-readiness tools by Terwee criteria
| Tool | Content validity |
Internal consistency |
Construct validity |
Reproducibility |
Responsiveness | Floor & ceiling effects | Interpretability | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor analysis | Cronbach’s alpha | Agreement | Reliability | ||||||
| TRAQ [4] |
+ |
+FA |
+: total (0.93), domain 1 (0.92), domain 2 (0.82) |
+: 100% (age, gender, disease type) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
? + mean/SD 0 MIC |
| ?sample size |
|||||||||
| UNC TRxANSITION [17] |
+ |
0 |
0-? used PC |
0: inferred from development |
+ |
? Small cohort (n = 35) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Self-management skills assessment guide [16] |
– |
0 |
+: 0.93 |
+: 100% (correlation with independence) |
0 |
? inter-rater PC 0.56 Small cohort (n = 47) |
0 |
+ |
0 |
| SCIS [8] |
- |
0 |
+: 0.93 |
?: no hypotheses, correlates with age, years since diagnosis |
?: Small cohort (n = 35) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Readiness auestionnaire [9] |
- |
0 |
0 |
+: 100% (caregiver ratings) |
0 |
? inter-rater PC 0.65 Small cohort (n = 36) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| RTQ [10] |
- |
0 |
+: 0.79-0.94 |
+: 86% (responsibility, medication knowledge, self-refilling, family relationship, decreased family involvement, adherence), no correlation with age |
0 |
? inter-rater PC 0.5-0.68 Small cohort (n = 48) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| TRS [2] |
- |
+FA ?sample size |
-: 0.19-0.85 |
-: 50% (self-management, age NOT adherence or health outcomes) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
+ |
? ? mean/SD (age) 0 MIC |
| RCBRS [13] |
- |
0 |
+: 0.85-0.9 |
+: 100% (responsibility, self-efficacy, decreased parenting stress) |
0 |
? inter-rater PC 0.33-0.58 |
0 |
0 |
? + mean/SD ? MIC |
| McPherson et al. [14] |
0 |
0 |
0 |
+: 100% (age, disease severity, gender) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
? + mean/SC ? MIC |
| TRQ [15] | - | 0 | 0 | +: 80% (anxiety, confidence in GP, decreased treatment length, improved with intervention) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FA: Factor analysis, K: weighted-kappa, PC: Pearson’s correlations, MIC: minimal important change.