Table 1.

EMPRO attributes definition, number of items and scoring description (adapted from Garin et al. [36]). KR-20 Kuder-Richardson 20, EMPRO evaluating measures of patient-reported outcomes

Attribute	Definition	No. of items	Higher scores represent…
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	7	The concept is more clearly stated to be measured. The empirical basis and methods for obtaining the item and for combining them are more appropriate
Reliability	The degree to which an instrument is free from random error	8	More clearly described and superior methods to collect internal consistency data. Better values of Cronbach’s alpha and/or KR-20 coefficients
Validity	The degree to which the instrument measures what it purports to measure	6	More evidence regarding content-related validity of the instrument for its intended use
Responsiveness	An instrument’s ability to detect change over time	3	More clearly described and more appropriate methods to assess sensitivity to change. The estimated magnitude of change is more clearly described, and the results are better
Interpretability	Possibility of assigning meaning to quantitative scores	3	The strategies to facilitate interpretation are more clearly described and appropriate
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)	7	The skills and time to complete the instrument are more clearly described and acceptable
Alternative modes of administration	Alternative modes of administration used for the administration of the instrument	2	The metric characteristics and use of each alternative mode of administration are specifically described and adequate