Table 8.

CEFIT results of Beattie and Murphy Instrument Utility Matrix

Aspect of utility	Measurement property/criteria checklist	Result	Rating of study quality	Rating of quality of results	Combined score of methods and results
Validity	Content validity (COSMIN checklist49 and Terwee)48	Items derived from integrative review of the literature and associated theoretical model. Content validity index with a patient and expert group found items were relevant and comprehensive.	Fair	Positive	**+
	Structural validity (COSMIN checklist49 and Terweel)48	Principal component analysis confirmed a unidimensional scale (one-factor solution) accounting for 57.3% variance.	Excellent	Positive	****+
Reliability	Internal consistency (COSMIN checklist49 and Terwee)48	Cronbach's α 0.78	Excellent	Positive	****+
Cost	Additional aspects of utility scoring criteria in figure 4	Number of CEFIT questionnaires needed to ensure reliable data is not yet known. Completion of CEFIT <15 min. Some administrative resource but no specialist resource required. Overall cost-efficiency calculated as moderate	NA	Good	***
Acceptability	Additional aspects of utility scoring criteria in figure 4	Investigations of participants’ understanding. There are low numbers of missing items (<10%) and adequate response rates (>40%). Testing has not yet been conducted in context (ie, hospital setting).	NA	Poor	*
Educational impact	Additional aspects of utility scoring criteria in figure 4	Explanatory or theoretical link between intended and actual use, but no clear evidence yet. Scoring stated and easy to calculate. Feedback is readily available in a format that enables necessary action.	NA	Good	***

Ratings of study quality *poor, **fair, ***good, ****excellent ratings of quality of results: (+) positive rating, (−) negative rating, (?) indeterminate rating, mixed (+?).

CEFIT, Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool; COSMIN, Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.