Table 1.

Overview of main findings and decisions about revisions, by theme

Theme	Type of feedback	Findings	Revisions
Relevance of the items to the Key Concepts (face validity)	Methodologists and people with expertise in the Key Concepts	Most items were judged as relevant	Minor revisions, items that were found to be partly relevant (20) or not relevant (1), were considered by the working group
Understanding and perceived difficulty of content	Methodologists and people with expertise in the Key Concepts Cognitive interviews with end-users	The ‘distance’ between the ‘best’ option and the ‘worse’ options was considered too small Low literacy skills in the target audience raised as a concern Certain terminology identified as problematic	The worse options made more ‘wrong’ Reduction in text Adding explanations of terminology and rewriting of scenarios
Preference and understanding of instructions (formats)	Cognitive interviews with end-users Piloting of sample sets of the Claim Evaluation Tool (pilots 1 to 5)	A mix of the simple-multiple choice and multiple true–false formats preferred Formats acceptable and recognisable Misunderstandings of instructions; open-answers provided and checking of multiple checkboxes	Redesign of formats and instructions to remove unnecessary open spaces, avoiding use of multiple check-boxes, and the use of grids in multiple true–false options
Timing and correct responses	Piloting of sample sets of the Claim Evaluation Tool (pilots 3 to 5)	30–60 min to complete a questionnaire that included demographic questions and a sample of 29 items Participants who had taken part in piloting of the IHC resources did slightly better than others for most of the Key Concepts	No revisions