Table 5.

Summary of methodological quality appraisal of included studies using MacDermid criteria.

Study References	MacDermid Criteria												Total	Overall Score (%)	Quality Score
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
[31]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	2	2	2	-	2	19	95%	HQ
[38]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	18	90%	HQ
[34]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	18	90%	HQ
[26]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	18	90%	HQ
[48]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	18	90%	HQ
[47]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	18	90%	HQ
[52]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	18	90%	HQ
[53]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	18	90%	HQ
[41]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	2	2	2	-	1	18	90%	HQ
[35]	2	2	2	1	1	-	2	2	2	2	-	2	18	90%	HQ
[42]	2	2	2	2	0	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	17	85%	HQ
[44]	2	1	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	17	85%	HQ
[32]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	1	17	85%	HQ
[46]	2	2	2	2	0	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	17	85%	HQ
[56]	2	2	1	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	17	85%	HQ
[37]	1	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	1	-	2	16	80%	HQ
[39]	2	2	2	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	16	80%	HQ
[43]	1	2	2	2	0	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	16	80%	HQ
[45]	1	2	2	2	0	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	16	80%	HQ
[51]	1	2	2	2	1	-	1	2	2	2	-	1	16	80%	HQ
[40]	1	2	1	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	16	80%	HQ
[55]	2	2	1	2	1	-	2	1	2	2	-	2	16	80%	HQ
[24]	2	2	2	2	1	-	1	0	1	2	-	2	15	75%	GQ
[49]	2	1	2	2	0	-	2	1	2	2	-	1	15	75%	GQ
[59]	2	1	2	2	0	-	1	1	2	2	-	2	15	75%	GQ
[54]	2	0	2	2	0	-	2	1	2	2	-	1	14	70%	GQ
[36]	1	1	2	2	0	-	1	1	2	2	-	2	14	70%	GQ
[25]	2	2	2	2	0	-	1	1	2	1	-	1	14	70%	GQ
[57]	2	1	2	2	0	-	1	1	2	1	-	2	14	70%	GQ
[35]	1	1	2	2	0	-	1	1	2	2	-	2	14	70%	GQ
[50]	1	1	2	2	0	-	1	1	1	2	-	1	12	60%	MQ
[58]	2	2	2	1	0	-	1	1	1	1	-	1	12	60%	MQ
[33]	2	1	1	1	0	-	2	1	1	0	-	1	10	50%	MQ

High quality” (HQ) ≥ 80.0%, “good quality” (GQ) between 70.0% and 79.9%, “moderate quality” (MQ) for scores between 50.0% and 69.9%, and “low quality” (LQ) < 50%. MacDermid criteria [29]: 1. Was the relevant background research cited to define what is currently known about the psychometric properties of the measures under study, and the need or potential contributions of the current research question? 2. Were appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria defined? 3. Were specific psychometric hypotheses identified? 4. Was an appropriate scope of psychometric properties considered? 5. Was an appropriate sample size used? 6. Was appropriate retention/follow-up obtained? (Studies involving retesting or follow-up only) 7. Documentation: Were specific descriptions provided or referenced that explain the measures and its correct application/interpretation (to a standard that would allow replication)? 8. Standardized Methods: Were administration and application of measurement techniques within the study standardized and did they are considered potential sources of error/misinterpretation? 9. Were analyses conducted for each specific hypothesis or purpose? 10. Were appropriate statistical tests conducted to obtain point estimates of the psychometric property? 11. Were appropriate ancillary analyses were done to describe properties beyond the point estimates (Confidence intervals, benchmark comparisons, SEM/MID)? 12. Were the conclusions/clinical recommendations supported by the study objectives, analysis, and results?